3./C./, 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented    bv *2)Vk2/  CAua-VVaot'. 

BR  162  .L63  1915 
Loetscher,  Frederick 

William,  b.  1874. 
Church  history  as  a  science 


CHURCH  HISTORY 

AS  A  SCIENCE  AND  AS  A 
THEOLOGICAL  DISCIPLINE 


INAUGURAL  ADDRESS 


BY    THZy/ 

Rev.  Frederick  William  Loetscher,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 


ON    THE 

OCCASION  OF  HIS  INDUCTION  INTO 

THE 

ARCHIBALD  ALEXANDER  PROFESSORSHIP 

OF 

CHURCH  HISTORY 

PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 
OCTOBER  13th,  1914 


reprinted  from 

The  Princeton  Theological  Review 

January  1915 


CHURCH   HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE  AND   AS   A 
THEOLOGICAL  DISCIPLINE 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Directors: 

It  is  with  mingled  feelings  that  I  rise  to  address  you 
on  this  occasion.  So  strong,  indeed,  are  some  of  the  emo- 
tions which  the  solemn  business  of  this  hour  reawakens 
within  me,  that  it  would  be  a  sheer  affectation  on  my  part 
not  to  allude  to  them. 

At  your  earnest  solicitation  I  have  exchanged  the  chair 
of  Homiletics  for  that  of  Church  History.  In  this  con- 
nection I  can  only  say — but  thus  much  I  must  say — that  as 
I  was  unable  to  make,  so  I  have  remained  unable  to  review 
this  decision,  without  many  a  secret  pahg  alike  of  regret 
and  of  anxious  solicitude.  I  should  be  untrue  to  myself, 
as  I  certainly  should  appear  wanting  in  my  obligations 
to  your  honorable  body,  if  I  should  fail  to  take  this  oppor- 
tunity of  giving  you  the  renewed  assurance  of  my  sincere 
and  grateful  appreciation  of  the  privilege  of  working  for 
three  years  in  the  Practical  Department  of  the  Seminary, — 
a  service  which  many  cherished  testimonies  have  embold- 
ened me  to  believe  has  probably  been  as  useful  as  any 
of  equal  length  that  I  may  ever  render,  and  which  memory 
persuades  me  has  been  as  happy  as  any  that  I  have  ever 
been  permitted  to  undertake. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  as  I  face  the  new  duties  to  which 
you  have  called  me  and  to-day  formally  introduced  me, 
I  find  much  comfort  and  inspiration  in  the  conviction  that 
in  your  action  I  have  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord, 
too  clear  to  be  misunderstood  and  too  imperative  to 
be  disobeyed.  And  other  satisfactions  have  abounded. 
The    work    itself,     as     I     have     renewed     my     acquaint- 


2  CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE 

ance  with  it  these  past  months,  has  more  and  more  re- 
sumed those  charming  features  and  that  benign  expression 
which  years  ago,  as  an  Instructor  in  this  department,  I 
had  learned  to  recognize  as  belonging  peculiarly  to  the 
muse  of  sacred  history.  Nor  can  I  conceal  my  joy  in  the 
reflection  that  you  have  asked  me  to  succeed  one  for  whom 
as  teacher  my  reverence,  as  superior  colleague  my  esteem, 
and  as  companion  and  friend  my  affectionate  regard  have 
been  equalled  only  by  my  admiration  for  the  exceptional 
abilities,  the  signal  devotion,  and  the  distinguished  success 
with  which  for  twenty  years  he  has  adorned  the  chair  of 
Church  History  in  this  Seminary,  the  Reverend  John 
DeWitt,  D.D,  LL.D. 

But  deeply  and  gratefully  sensible  as  I  am  of  the  high 
honor  your  call  has  conferred  upon  me,  I  am  at  the  same 
time  conscious,  most  of  all,  of  my  inadequacy  to  the  task 
I  have  assumed  and  of  my  unworthiness  to  follow  in  the 
steps  of  my  illustrious  predecessors  during  the  century  of 
the  Seminary's  history.  I  can  only  give  you  my  pledge 
that,  as  divine  grace  may  enable  me,  I  shall  be  faithful 
to  the  sacred  trust  committed  to  my  care. 

In  choosing  the  theme  of  the  present  address,  I  was 
led  to  think  that  I  might  perhaps  best  meet  the  proprieties 
of  the  occasion,  if  I  should  strive  to  realize  that  double 
purpose  which  the  late  Dr.  Shedd  declared  is  the  true  aim 
of  an  inaugural  discourse:  "to  justify  the  existence  of  a 
specific  professorship,  and  to  magnify  the  specific  discipline 
which  it  imparts".^  I  venture,  then,  to  announce  as  my 
subject :  "Church  History  as  a  Science  and  as  a  Theo- 
logical Discipline." 

I.  Church  History  as  a  Science 

When  we  try  to  analyze  and  define  the  idea  of  Church 
History,  the  most  obvious  fact  confronting  us  is  that  our 
science  is  a  binomial;  it  has  to  do  with  the  Church,  and 


*  Shedd,  The  Nature,  and  Influence,  of  the  Historic  Spirit   (Theo- 
logical Essays,  1877,  p.  53). 


CHURCH    HISTORY  AS   A   SCIENCE  3 

it  has  to  do  with  history.  The  importance  of  this  con- 
sideration appears  the  moment  we  undertake,  in  the  way 
of  a  scientific  methodology,  to  determine  the  relation  of 
these  two  elements  to  one  another  in  the  organism  of  that 
body  of  knowledge  to  which  they  conjointly  give  the 
distinctive  designation.  The  difficulty  involved  in  this 
attempt  is,  of  course,  only  increased  by  the  fact  that  both 
terms  belong  to  the  most  comprehensive  words  of  human 
speech.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  unphilosophic 
treatment  to  which  our  science  has  so  often  been  subjected 
has  been  due  chiefly  to  the  unjust,  because  one-sided, 
emphasis  given  now  to  the  one  and  now  to  the  other  of 
the  two  objective  principles  represented  in  the  compound 
name  "Church  History".  Taking  this  tendency  in  its  ex- 
treme forms,  there  are  those  who  who  have  unduly  de- 
pressed, not  to  say  ignored,  the  idea  of  history,  either  by 
reducing  the  noun  to  an  adjective,  or,  worse  still,  by  sub- 
stituting a  quite  heterogeneous  concept.  To  such  our 
science  becomes  merely  "Historical  Theology"  or  "Ecclesias- 
tical Theology."  Doubtless,  in  the  light  of  sound  principles 
of  theological  encyclopedia,  these  characterizations,  nar- 
rowly looked  at,  are  not  as  faulty  as  at  first  sight  they 
may  appear.  For  the  term  "theology,"  as  distinguished 
from  "dogmatics,"  is  quite  broad  enough  to  embrace  every- 
thing that  may  legitimately  be  taught  in  a  theological 
seminary,  from  that  department  that  seeks  to  make  the 
latest  Assyriological  researches  throw  a  new  radiance  upon 
the  page  of  sacred  Scripture,  to  that  which  gives  the  student 
the  best  counsels  as  to  how  to  order  his  remarks  at  a 
funeral,  or  hold  a  baby  at  a  baptismal  font.  The  fact 
remains,  however,  that  the  words  "church"  and  "ecclesias- 
tical" are  not  quite  synonymous,  but  come  from  different 
roots  and  have  different  associations;  and  further  that 
"history"  is  something  other  than,  if  not  greater  than, 
"theology".  At  least  equally  mischievous,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  the  slighting  of  the  idea  of  the  "Church",  and 
the  consequent  identification  of  our  discipline  with  general 


4  CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE 

or  universal  history.  The  two  sciences,  to  be  sure,  are 
sisters;  indeed,  they  are  twin-sisters.  But  much  as  they 
resemble  each  other  in  their  physical  features  and  their 
physiological  functions,  they  are  quite  unlike  in  what  we 
may  call  the  development  of  their  moral  or  spiritual 
character.  If  they  were  precisely  the  same  in  all  respects, 
we  should,  to  go  no  further  just  now,  have  no  adequate 
explanation  of  the  well  known  fact  that  from  time  im- 
memorial history  has  belonged,  not  to  one,  but  to  two 
faculties  of  instruction,  to  two  circles  of  science,  the 
theological  and  the  philosophical.  The  reason  for  this, 
we  may  be  sure,  can  be  found  only  in  some  necessity  lying 
close  to  the  very  heart  of  the  organism  of  the  sciences. 
Things  of  this  sort  do  not  come  at  haphazard.  Nor  is  it 
strange,  therefore,  that  in  days  like  these,  when  systematic 
theology  herself,  once  the  proud  queen  of  the  sciences, 
has  lost  not  only  her  throne,  but,  as  at  least  some  would 
have  us  believe,  even  her  right  to  a  seat  among  the  sciences, 
many  should  be  saying  that  the  university  and  the  college 
can  and  should  teach  the  history  of  the  Church.  This  is 
inevitable,  for  if  one  member  of  the  corpus  theologiae 
sacrae  suffers,  all  the  rest  must  suffer  with  it.  But  neither 
the  pain  nor  the  mutilation  due  to  the  radical  surgery  proves 
that  the  operation  was  either  skilful  or  even  necessary. 
It  may  be  a  case  of  vivisection,  as  useless  as  it  is  pitiable, 
the  wanton  dismemberment  and  destruction  of  a  living 
organism.  We  must,  therefore,  give  due  attention  to  the 
Church  also,  if  we  would  do  justice  to  that  complex  idea 
of  which  it  is  a  part,  the  idea  of  Church  History.  For 
if  the  Church  be  only  a  common,  an  ordinary,  a  natural 
historical  phenomenon,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  study 
of  its  history  should  not  be  confined  to  the  appropriate 
department  of  the  college  or  university  curriculum.  But  if 
the  Church  has  a  supernatural  life  inseparable  from  that 
organism  of  miraculous,  redemptive  energies  and  their 
authoritative  interpretations  which  is  given  us  in  holy 
Scripture,   then  the   history   of   the   Church,   whatever   its 


CHURCH    HISTORY  AS   A   SCIENCE  5 

connections  with  general  history  may  prove  to  be,  not 
only  may,  but  by  a  principial  necessity  must  belong  to  that 
circle  of  the  sciences,  namely  the  theological,  whose  task 
it  is  to  apprehend  and  reflect  the  knowledge  imbedded  in 
this  special  self-revelation  of  God. 

So  then,  we  have  to  inquire,  in  turn :  What  is  the  idea 
of  history?  What  is  the  idea  of  the  Church?  And  what, 
by  consequence,  is  the  idea  of  Church  History? 

Our  word  history  comes  to  us  through  the  Latin  from 
the  Greek  laropia  •  The  primary  meaning  of  this  noun, 
corresponding  to  that  of  the  verb  [a-TopeXv ,  was  learning 
by  investigation,  a  usage  that  still  reflected  the  derivation 
of  the  term  from  dSevai  to  know.  A  secondary  sense 
naturally  arose — the  knozvledge  thus  acquired.  Later  still 
the  word  came  to  denote  a  narrative,  a  setting  forth  in 
writing  of  the  results  of  an  investigation.  In  all  three  of 
these  senses,  therefore,  the  stress  was  laid  upon  the  sub- 
jective process  involved  in  the  ascertainment,  the  knowl- 
edge, and  the  exhibition  or  recital  of  iacts.  But  in  our 
language,  history,  like  its  equivalent  in  other  modern 
tongues,  has  not  only  a  subjective  but  also  an  objective 
sense;  it  denotes  not  only  a  narrative  of  events  but  also  the 
events  themselves.  In  German,  indeed,  the  word  Geschichte 
has  primarily  had  the  latter  signification;  it  means  first 
of  all  das  Geschehene,  that  which  has  happened.  Moreover, 
just  in  proportion  to  the  development  of  history  as  a  science 
we  invariably  find  that  the  objective  meaning  becomes  the 
more  important.  The  reason  is  not  far  to  seek,  ^or  the 
very  right  of  a  science  to  exist  as  a  separate  branch  of 
knowledge  depends  not  upon  the  method  of  investigation 
or  its  mode  of  presenting  results,  but  upon  its  subject- 
matter.  It  must,  of  course,  be  conceded  that  historiography 
as  an  art  has  owed  much  to  those  French  and  English 
writers  who  have  insisted  upon  treating  history  as  a  species 
of  belles  lettres.  Certainly  we  are  all  familiar  with  his- 
torical works  that  would  be  more  valuable  as  well  as  more 
delightful,  if  they  had  greater  artistic  merits.     But  could 


6  CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE 

we  not  say  the  same  even  of  many  volumes  dealing  with 
the  exact  sciences?  Do  we  not  prize  these  in  spite  of 
their  jejune  formulas,  their  crude  wood-cuts  and  their 
poor  bindings?  The  fact  is  that  in  every  science  knowl- 
edge is  the  decisive  consideration ;  and  if  history  is  to  make 
.  good  its  claim  as  a  science,  we  dare  not  confound  its  ob- 
jective data  with  any  one's  description  of  them.  The  picture 
-  the  historical  narrative  gives  is  but  the  reproduction  by 
the  author  of  an  image  produced  in  his  mind  by  the  his- 
torical realities  themselves. 

What,  then,  is  the  subject-matter  of  history  considered 
as  a  science?  The  answer  to  that  question  has  varied  not 
a  little.  In  accordance  with  the  unlimited  scope  of  the 
original  sense  of  the  word,  history  at  first  included  all 
fields  of  investigation.  It  undertook  to  explore  the  whole 
domain  of  human  knowledge,  to  embrace  the  total  wisdom 
of  mankind.  From  this  point  of  view  whatever  was  was 
history.  History  was  the  ocean  which  drew  to  its  broad 
bosom  not  only  the  fountains  of  all  our  thinking,  but  also 
the  springs  of  all  our  life.  In  history,  thus  understood,  all 
the  sciences  without  exception  so  commingle  that  their 
onward  progress  is  but  one  element  in  the  vast  process 
of  the  world's  development,  that  being  a  science  to-day 
which  to-morrow  will  be  history. 

In  the  course  of  time,  however,  the  necessities  of  the 
case  led  to  divisions  and  subdivisions  of  this  domain  of 
science.  Divide  et  impera  has  been  the  secret  of  man's 
conquest  of  the  field  of  knowledge.  The  first  and  most 
radical  distinction  was  that  made  between  nature  and  man 
as  objects  of  investigation.  It  was  found  that  jointly 
they  represented  the  phenomenal  world  in  its  two  chief 
aspects,  but  that,  though  they  are  not  absolutely  separable, 
they  nevertheless  must  be  kept  apart  by  the  mind  that  tries 
to  reflect  in  its  consciousness  the  inherent  distinctions  ob- 
servable in  the  objective  data  of  knowledge.  The  sphere 
of  nature  was  seen  dominated  by  a  universal  law  of 
necessity.     The  planet  kept  to  its  appointed  orbit.     The 


I 


CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE  7 

tree  was  seen  budding,  blossoming  and  bearing  its  fruit 
year  after  year  by  a  process  that  was  as  uniform  as  it  was 
involuntary.  Even  in  the  brute  creation,  where  life  becomes 
conscious  and  reveals  a  measure  of  intelligence,  the  bee 
and  the  beaver  were  seen  performing  their  humble  tasks 
in  precisely  the  same  fashion  as  they  did  hundreds  of  years 
ago.  It  is,  therefore,  only  by  courtesy  that  the  word  history 
is  now  applied  to  anything  pertaining  to  the  sphere  of 
nature  as  such,  that  is  to  the  domain  governed  by  the  law 
of  necessary  or  involuntary  action. 

Now  besides  nature  and  man  there  is  only  one  other 
object  of  our  possible  knowledge,  and  that  is  God.  Strictly 
speaking  the  term  history  can  have  no  reference  to  him. 
For  he  is  lifted  above  all  considerations  of  time  and  place. 
He  is  without  succession  or  change.  He  remains  eternally 
the  same.  Indeed,  he  can  become  the  object  of  knowledge, 
whether  scientific  or  experiential,  only  as  he  reveals  him- 
self. On  a  priori  grounds  we  might  infer  that  this  divine 
self-disclosure,  if  made  for  man's  benefit,  would  come  to 
him,  as  the  alleged  record  of  it  in  the  Bible  claims  it  did, 
through  nature  and  through  human  personalities.  As  such 
it  has,  to  be  sure,  its  own  history,  a  history  that  becomes, 
the  primary  source  of  theology. 

These  last  considerations,  however,  only  give  point  to 
the  statement  that  ordinarily  we  confine  our  use  of  the 
word  history  to  human  events.  It  has  its  home  in  what 
the  Anglo-Saxon  called  the  "world",  that  is,  "the  age 
of  man".  It  deals,  in  the  first  instance  and  immediately, 
only  with  our  free,  self-determined  activities,  though  in  a 
subordinate  manner  it  must  constantly  take  account  of  our 
material  environment.  In  its  broadest  objective  sense, 
there'fore,  history  is  the  sum  of  all  that  man  has  thought 
and  wrought,  all  that  he  has  dared  and  suffered  and 
achieved,  everything  that  has  befallen  him  and  everything 
that  he  has  done,  from  the  beginning  of  his  generations 
until  now.  It  is  the  total  life  of  the  human  race,  each 
individual  member  acting  and  being  acted  upon  as  a 
rational,  voluntary  and  moral  cause  of  events. 


8  CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE 

But  as  in  all  other  sciences,  so  in  history,  the  subject- 
matter  may  be  treated  with  more  and  ever  more  of 
philosophic  insight  and  thoroughness.  Facts  themselves, 
indeed,  are  the  mere  dross  of  science;  the  ideas  which 
interpret  them  are  the  precious  gold  in  the  ore.  It  marked 
an  epoch  in  the  development  of  our  science,  therefore, 
when,  toward  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  just  a 
few  years  before  Voltaire  coined  the  phrase  "the 
philosophy  of  history", — a  phrase  to  which  his  treatise  of 
that  name  did  but  scant  justice  because  of  its  shallow 
rationalism,' — Montesquieu  emphasized  the  truth  that  the 
most  distinctive  trait  of  every  social  phenomenon  lies  in 
its  capacity  of  continuous  evolution  or  development,  and 
that  it  can  be  adequately  known  only  by  a  study  of  its 
consecutive  states  and  of  each  state  in  comparison  with 
the  co-existing  general  conditions  of  society.  At  about 
the  same  time,  moreover,  Turgot,  in  a  singularly  profound 
and  forceful  manner,  made  the  idea  of  progress  "the  or- 
ganic principle,"  as  it  has  been  called,  of  history.  Since 
then,  the  existence  of  such  a  principle  in  the  career  of 
mankind  has  scarcely  been  questioned,  though  views  have 
differed  as  to  its  precise  nature.  The  influence  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  will  be  seen  later,  has  here  been  decisive.  For 
the  present  the  statement  may  suffice  that  now  the  most 
obvious  fact  in  history,  as  in  geography,  is  that  the  world 
is  round,  that  the  race  is  not  a  mere  aggregation  of  units 
but  an  organic  unity  in  which  every  part  is  reciprocally 
means  and  end ;  and  that  the  only  interpretation  which 
does  justice  to  the  phenomena  of  man-life  as  known  to 
history  is  that  which  presupposes  the  orderly,  causally  con- 
nected or  genetic  development  of  the  entire  process.  It 
is  the  organic  sequence  in  the  relations  of  the  events  that 
has  converted  the  vastness  of  this  chaos  into  the  vastness 
of  a  cosmos.  The  change  wrought  in  our  apprehension 
of  the  data  of  history  has  been  like  unto  that  produced 
in  our  knowledge  of  astronomy,  when  the  planets  began 
to  be  seen  in  their  organic  connections  as  determined  by 


CHURCH    HISTORY  AS   A   SCIENCE  9 

the  always  existing  but  only  then  discovered  law  of  gravita- 
tion, with  the  sun  instead  of  the  earth  as  the  centre  of  the 
system.  Henceforth  history,  like  the  other  worlds  open 
to  human  investigation,  takes  its  place  under  the  reign  of 
law.  The  events  with  which  it  deals  present  not  only  an 
"orderly  succession,  but  an  organic  evolution,  a  genetic  devel- 
opment in  which  is  unfolded  the  social,  political,  industrial, 
intellectual,  moral  and  spiritual  progress  of  mankind. 

Such,  then,  are  the  presuppositions  of  history  as  a  * 
science.  It  has  a  definite  and  distinct  body  of  facts  for 
its  subject-matter — the  life  of  humanity  in  the  unity,  con- 
tinuit}'  and  multiformity  of  its  genetic  development;  these 
facts  are  capable  of  a  rational  interpretation  and  of  a 
systematic  treatment  that  will  give  proper  generalizations 
of  knowledge;  these  facts  are  what  they  are  for  scientific 
purposes  because  of  the  organic  relations  in  which  they 
stand  to  one  another. 

Such  a  definition  of  history  as  the  science  of  the  develop- 
ment of  humanity  is  sufficient  for  practical  needs.  Its 
elasticity  is  its  chief  merit.  Anything  more  formal  would 
be  less  useful.  Only  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  it  is  the 
function  of  a  definition  to  convey  any  knowledge  of  the 
science  itself.  Rather  is  the  reverse  the  case;  to  under- 
stand the  definition  of  a  science  is  not  a  condition  but  a 
consequence  of  the  study  of  the  science.  All  that  the 
definition  can  do  is  to  specify  the  distinctive  subject-matter 
of  the  science. 

This  having  been  done  in  the  case  before  us,  we  may 
briefly  show,  in  passing,  how  and  why  history  is  to  be 
differentiated  from  certain  other  sciences  with  which  it  is 
often  confounded.  Nothing  need  here  be  said  about 
chronicles  or  annals.  Their  subject-matter  is  not  historic 
at  all  in  the  sense  that  it  presents  itself  to  the  observer 
in  relations  causally  determined  by  man.  This  is  only 
another  way  of  saying  that  this  species  of  narrative  is 
not  scientific. 


lO  CHURCH    HISTORY   As   A    SCIENCE 

Again,  biography  is  not  to  be  identified  with  history. 
In  loftiness  o'f  moral  aim  and  in  thoroughness  of  investi- 
gation the  two  may  have  much  in  common.  It  may  be 
conceded,  too,  that  there  is  an  oft-neglected  truth  in  that 
favorite  dictum  of  Carlyle's  that  the  history  of  mankind 
is  the  history  of  its  great  men.  But  on  the  other  hand, 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  course  of  history  as  a  whole 
has  been  determined  much  more  by  general  causes, 
tendencies  and  movements  than  by  the  words  or  deeds  or 
influences  of  individuals.  In  fact,  history  as  the  develop- 
ment of  human  society,  will  always  be  something  larger 
than  the  sum  total  of  all  great  lives  or  of  all  lives  what- 
soever taken  as  units ;  just  as  a  polygon,  no  matter  how  many 
sides  it  may  be  given,  is  always  smaller  than  its  circum- 
scribing circle.  And  not  only  so,  but  history  as  an  organic 
evolution  cannot  possibly  be  adequately  displayed  in  the 
most  comprehensive  biographical  encyclopedia  ever  pub- 
lished or  even  conceived.  History  deals  with  individuals 
only  as  parts  of  the  social  organism.  Biography  deals  with 
the  life  of  the  race  only  as  this  exists  in  its  distinct  and 
separate  units. 

The  attempt  has  sometimes  been  made,  notably  by  classi- 
cal scholars,  to  identify  philology  and  history,  making  it 
the  science  of  all  that  has  been  produced  or  accomplished 
by  the  human  spirit  and  preserved  in  writing  for  our  in- 
formation. But  though  this  treatment  of  the  facts  may  be 
measurably  justified  so  far  as  the  limited  and  chiefly  literary 
or  at  least  linguistic  sources  of  our  knowledge  of  the 
ancient  world  are  concerned,  the  scheme  breaks  down  the 
moment  we  apply  it  to  the  immensely  vaster  and  quite 
heterogeneous  sources  of  mediaeval  and  especially  of 
modern  history.  Not  only  does  the  historian  need  other 
aids  besides  the  philological,  but^ — and  this  again  becomes  de- 
cisive— the  subject-matter  of  his  science  is  entirely  different 
from  that  of  philology :  the  latter  makes  the  study  of  lan- 
guage an  end  in  itself;  the  former  makes  it  only  one  of 
many  means  to  an  end — the  knowledge  of  the  developing 


CHURCH    HISTORY  AS  A   SCIENCE  II 

life  of  humanity  in  all  its  phases,  including,  of  course, 
that  of  language  and  literature.  It  need  only  be  added 
that  this  relation  does  not  deny  the  mutual  helpfulness  of 
both  sciences. 

The  modern  science  of  statistics  is  often  presented  as  a 
virtual  substitute  for  history.  But  at  best  its  tables  are 
only  auxiliaries  for  the  use  of  the  historian.  They  are 
necessarily  static,  never  dynamic,  and  frequently  too 
atomistic,  too  fragmentary  or  too  arbitrary  to  be  of  much 
service.  Certainly  the  most  significant  facts  of  history 
will  always  have  to  be  read  into  such  mathematical 
estimates  and  mechanical  summaries. 

Of  a  piece  with  the  last  error  is  the  attempt  to  make 
history  fit  the  last  of  the  natural  sciences.  But  this  does 
violence  to  the  nature  of  historical  facts ;  for  in  this  realm, 
as  we  have  seen,  causality  is  primarily  psychical  or  personal, 
and  only  in  an  incidental  way,  or  at  least  to  a  subordinate 
extent,  is  it  physical  or  necessary.  Historical  realities  are 
quite  too  amorphic  to  be  capable  of  an  adequate  treatment 
by  the  methods  of  the  exact  or  even  the  natural  sciences. 
History  must  needs  acknowledge  a  heavy  debt  of  gratitude 
to  these  sciences,  for  it  was  from  them  that  she  has  learned 
caution  and  thoroughness  in  the  use  of  the  inductive 
method  in  her  own  more  difficult  field.  But  when  in  their 
pride  of  achievement  they  strive  to  reduce  her  to  a  species 
of  mechanics,  or  chemistry,  or  physiology,  or  biology,  per- 
chance even  geography,  it  is  high  time  to  break  the  yoke  of 
this  modern  scholasticism. 

Prof.  Freeman  defined  history  as  "the  science  or  knowl- 
edge of  man  in  his  political  character".^  But  among  our 
more  celebrated  modern  historians  few  could  be  found 
who  were  less  philosophical  than  he.  Social  or  economic 
conditions,  art,  religion,  morals,  the  whole  world  of  ideas 
had  little  or  no  interest  for  him.  His  own  work,  so  ad- 
mirable in  many  respects,  is  nevertheless  the  best  refuta- 
tion of  his  narrow  conception  of  history.     Political  events 

'  TItc   Methods  of   Historical   Study.   London,    1886,   p.    118. 


12  CHURCH    HISTORY  AS  A   SCIENCE 

have  often  enough,  to  be  sure,  been  the  most  important 
element  in  a  historical  development,  but  they  are  always 
only  one  of  many  such  factors.  Politics,  or  the  science  of 
the  state,  is  only  a  branch  of  history. 

Sociology  as  a  science  has  scarcely  as  yet  become  con- 
scious of  herself.  All  attempted  definitions  show  her  to 
be  close  of  kin  to  history.  Both  deal  with  man  in  his 
social  relations.  But  while  history  traces  the  continuous 
organic  development  of  the  life  of  man,  sociology  investi- 
gates the  general  forms  and  functions  of  typical  social 
groups  or  communities,  in  order  by  a  comparison  of  the 
types  to  learn  the  conditions  of  their  existence  and  in  the 
light  of  such  knowledge  to  consider  in  turn  the  peculiai-ities 
of  each  type.  Obviously,  history  and  sociology  are  mutual 
auxiliaries,  but  their  tasks  are  quite  different. 

Much  the  same  is  true  of  the  relation  of  history  to 
anthropology,  with  the  closely  allied  but  often  independ- 
ently treated  sciences  of  ethnography,  ethnology  and 
demography.  These  all  investigate  and  classify  facts  per- 
taining to  the  life  of  the  race,  or  portions  of  the  race, 
from  the  lowest  stages  of  savagery  to  the  highest  levels 
of  civilization.  Their  contributions  to  history  are  many 
and  valuable;  but  history  alone  can  use  these  resources, 
as  it  uses  all  others,  to  exhibit  the  organic  development 
of  the  life  of  the  race  as  a  whole. 

In  this  account  of  the  process  by  which,  with  ever-in- 
creasing precision,  the  subject-matter  of  history  as  a 
science  has  been  determined,  we  have  had  occasion  to  allude 
to  some  of  the  more  important  steps  in  the  corresponding 
development  of  historiography  as  an  art.  This  movement, 
if  only  we  could  take  time  to  trace  it,  would  throw  many 
an  interesting  side-light  upon  the  former.  For  while  the 
two  lines  have  often  run  parallel  to  one  another  for  con- 
siderable intervals,  they  have  time  and  again  interacted. 

Broadly  speaking,  the  writing  of  history  has  passed 
through  three  stages. 


CHURCH    HISTORY   AS  A   SCIENCE  1 3 

111  the  infancy  of  the  science,  as  best  exempHfied  to  this 
day  by  Herodotus,  "the  father  of  history",  it  was  con- 
sidered sufiticient  to  give  a  simple,  straightforward,  graphic 
account  of  things  that  happened.  The  good  story-teller 
was  the  good  historian.  He  must  know,  above  all,  how 
to  gratify  the  national  or  racial  pride,  the  religious  or 
patriotic  aspirations,  or  perchance  even  the  mere  curiosity 
of  his  readers.  His  spirit  and  aim  is  much  like  that  of  the 
epic  poet.  There  are  those,  indeed,  who  would  deny  such 
works  a  place  in  the  historical  section  of  a  modern  library. 
The  fact  remains,  however,  that  such  narratives  are  truly 
historical  in  the  sense  that  they  treat  of  the  real  matter  of 
history,  though  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  more 
philosophic  handling  of  the  science  they  rank  but  little 
above  annals  or  chronicles,  there  being  no  sufficient  ground- 
ing of  the  events  in  human  causality. 

It  w^as  Thucydides  among  the  ancient  Greeks,  and 
Cornelius  Nepos  and  Tacitus  among  the  ancient  Romans, 
who  have  left  us  the  chief  classic  illustrations  of  the  second 
kind  of  historical  composition,  the  practically  edifying,  or, 
as  Polybius  called  it,  "the  pragmatic  history".  Here  the 
attempt  is  made  in  more  or  less  thoroughgoing  fashion, 
to  find  the  reason  of  events,  whether  in  the  motives  of  the 
actors  engaged,  or  in  the  influences  of  quite  complex  social, 
generally  political,  phenomena.  At  their  best,  such  works, 
responding  to  a  deep-seated  human  desire  and  need,  have 
a  permanent  value  as  instruments  of  instruction  for  the 
general  reader  and  as  guides  for  men  charged  with  the 
direction  of  affairs.  Too  often,  however,  the  historical 
pragmatist  makes  an  undue,  not  to  say  a  culpably  unworthy 
use  of  his  freedom  in  attributing  motives  to  those  of  whom 
he  writes,  interprets  great  issues  in  the  subdued  light  of 
backstairs  diplomacy,  and  neglects — as  was  notably  the 
case  with  many  medieval  writers  of  this  school — the 
general  interests  of  culture  and  civilization,  as  well  as 
the  influence  of  the  material  environment. 

The  highest  stage  in  historiography  has  been  attained 


14  CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE 

only  in  modern  times.  Only  in  the  eighteenth  century 
did  men  begin  to  see  history,  as  a  body  of  organically  con- 
nected facts  in  the  life  of  the  race,  sweep  majestically,  like 
some  new-found  planet,  into  their  field  of  vision.  And 
though  no  science  can  point  for  its  humble  beginnings  to 
a  remoter  antiquity  than  can  history,  its  relatively  late 
maturity  ought  not  to  occasion  any  surprise.  For  on  the 
one  hand,  history  belongs  to  the  mixed  sciences,  which 
deal  primarily  with  spiritual  aspects  of  the  universe,  but 
must  constantly  investigate  these  in  their  relation  to  their 
material  surroundings.  It  thus  partakes  of  the  difficulties 
that  beset  alike  the  psychical  and  the  physical  sciences. 
Accordingly,  its  progress  has  in  large  measure  been  directly 
dependent  upon  the  cultivation  not  only  of  those  allied 
disciplines,  with  which,  as  we  have  seen,  it  has  sometimes 
been  confounded,  but  also  of  those  that  are  technically 
called  its  auxiliary  sciences;  palaeography,  diplomatics, 
sphragistics,  numismatics,  genealogy,  and  above  all — 
those  two  "eyes  of  history" — chronology  and  geography. 
As  Dr.  Shedd,  in  the  discourse  from  which  I  quoted  at 
the  outset,  has  well  said :  "And  if  we  consider  the  mental 
qualifications  required  for  its  production,  the  department 
whose  nature  and  claims  we  are  considering,  still  upholds 
its  superiority,  in  regard  to  universality  and  comprehensive- 
ness. The  historic  talent  is  inclusive  of  all  other  talents. 
The  depth  of  the  philosopher,  the  truthfulness  and 
solemnity  of  the  theologian,  the  dramatic  and  imaginative 
power  of  the  poet,  are  all  necessary  to  the  perfect  historian, 
and  would  be  found  in  him,  at  their  height  of  excellence, 
did  such  a  being  exist.  For  it  has  been  truly  said,  that 
we  shall  sooner  see  a  perfect  philosophy,  or  a  perfect  poem, 
than  a  perfect  history."  But  on  the  other  hand,  the 
ultimate  reason  for  the  late  ripening  of  historic  science 
is  to  be  found,  not  on  its  subjective,  but  on  its  objective 
side — in  the  nature  of  its  facts  or  data.  For,  assuming 
that  the  historic  development  of  man  is  an  organic  process, 
a  considerable  period  of  time  must  elapse  before  a  sufficient 


CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE  1 5 

number  of  typical,  or  at  least  significant  features  can 
be  evolved.  For  instance,  there  is  the  idea  of  unity  as  an 
essential  characteristic  of  every  living  organism.  But  how 
could  a  medieval  writer,  on  historic  grounds,  posit  the 
unity  of  the  race,  when  half  of  the  planet,  with  more  than 
half  of  the  world's  population,  was  to  him  term  incognita  f 
Or  where  could  he,  within  the  narrow  limits  of  his 
monastery  or  bishopric,  find  a  suitable  yardstick  to  measure 
the  progress  of  a  civilization  which  he  could  understand, 
if  at  all,  only  in  the  light  of  a  context  that  embraced  many 
centuries  and  diverse  nations?  But  no  organic  evolution 
is  intelligible,  if  the  marks  of  its  progress  are  not  dis- 
cerned. But  above  all,  such  progress  itself  depends  chiefly 
upon  the  free  and  full  development  of  the  individual  mem- 
bers of  the  organism.  And  where  in  those  feudal  days 
did  the  masses  of  the  people  ever  enter  into  their  divine 
birthright  of  freedom?  History  herself  teaches  us  that 
it  is  only  in  the  latest,  the  most  fully  developed,  the  most 
complex  civilizations  that  the  common  man  has  attained 
his  highest  individuality  and  the  liberty  requisite  to  func- 
tion at  the  maximum  of  his  social  efficiency.  In  fine, 
world-history  could  not  be  satisfactorily  apprehended  as  an 
organism,  until  its  organic  nature  had  sufficient  time  to 
disclose  itself. 

Long  before  that  modern  day  dawned,  however,  the  idea 
of  the  organic  development  of  humanity  had  received  a 
classic  and  forever  sacred  expression,  first  in  the  life  and 
then  in  the  literature,  of  a  peculiar  people,  a  race  that  was 
historically  constituted  in  the  form  of  a  special  divine 
economy.  From  the  very  beginning  of  the  Christian  era, 
therefore,  when  that  holy  Scripture  was  given  a  universal 
mode,  this  idea  began  to  exert  its  characteristic  influence 
upon  the  thought  and  the  life  of  the  world,  though  it  has 
had  to  wait  till  our  own  day  for  its  approximately  ecu- 
menical realization.  That  is  why  even  that  medieval  his- 
torian who  was  necessarily  limited  in  the  understanding 
of  many  of  his  facts,  could  nevertheless,  by  his  customary 


l6  CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE 

grouping  of  all  events  after  Christ  under  the  one  rubric 
of  "the  last  age",  give  the  humble  story  of  his  monastery 
the  splendor  of  a  certain  ideal  unity  that  we  seek  in  vain 
in  the  most  finished  productions  of  pagan  antiquity.  That 
is  why  St.  Augustine,  in  his  De  Civitate  Dei,  our 
first  Christian  philosophy  of  history,  could  write  a  prophetic 
sketch  of  the  progress  of  the  race,  at  the  very  time  that 
he  saw  the  pillars  of  the  ancient  world  crashing  to  their 
destruction.  That  is  why  all  through  the  middle  ages 
there  were  some  quiet  evangelical  mystics  who  could  shatter 
the  yoke  of  hierarchical  tyranny  and  enter  into  the  freedom 
of  full-statured  manhood.  In  a  word,  if  an  organism  is 
a  unitary  structure  that  secures  its  own  vital  growth  through 
the  ever-developing  perfection  of  its  members,  then  we  must 
conclude,  history  herself  being  the  witness,  that  it  is  to 
Christianity,  more  than  to  all  other  influences  combined, 
that  the  human  race  owes  alike  the  highest  realization  of 
itself  as  an  organism  and  the  most  adequate  knowledge 
of  itself  as  such. 

This  fact  obviously  calls  for  further  consideration.  It 
must  be  assessed  at  its  real  value.  We  now  turn,  therefore, 
to  our  second  preliminary  inquiry:  What  is  the  idea  of 
the  Church  ? 

Like  many  another  word  that  once  came  forth  clean-cut 
and  shining  from  some  famous  royal  mint,  the  term 
Church  has  long  since,  through  the  attritions  of  use,  become 
so  badly  worn  down,  that  few  who  handle  that  coin  to-day 
have  any  clear  idea  as  to  what  sovereign's  image  was 
originally  stamped  upon  it,  or  how  its  superscription  read, 
or  what  value  it  professed  to  have.  But  the  knowledge  of 
these  details  has  by  no  means  been  altogether  lost.  It  needs 
only  to  be  more  generally  distributed  for  the  common 
good.  The  most  obvious  thing,  at  any  rate,  that  may  be 
said  about  the  Church  is  that  it  is  a  fact  given  in  a  definite 
historical  context.  It  is  a  phenomenon  found  only  on 
Jewish  and  Christian  soil.  And  if  the  most  skilful  expert 
in  numismatics  cannot  tell  us  all  we  should  like  to  know 


CHURCH    HISTORY   AS  A   SCIENCE  1 7 

about  the  process  of  coining  this  word,  the  humblest 
philologist  can  tell  us  its  original  value.  Etymology  here, 
too,  is  our  sufficient  guide. 

Our  word  Church,  hke  its  equivalent  in  all  modern 
Teutonic  languages,  and  likewise  in  most  of  the  dialects 
of  those  Slavic  nations  that  were  converted  by  Greek  mis- 
sionaries, comes,  not  from  any  Germanic  source,  but 
directly  from  the  biblical  Greek,  KupiaKOb ,  "pertaining  to 
the  Lord",  that  is  the  Lord  recognized  as  such  by  the 
Christians.  Originally,  no  doubt,  it  was  the  feminine  form 
of  the  adjective  that  was  used,  the  noun  to  be  supplied 
being  oUia ;  so  that  the  Church  in  the  first  instance  was 
the  house  of  the  Lord.  Gradually,  however,  the  name 
was  transferred  to  those  who  met  in  this  house  for  worship. 
The  Church  became  the  congregation.  In  modern  Romance 
languages,  however,  as  also  in  our  own,  we  find  another 
set  of  derivatives  from  another  Greek  original,  e/f«Xr^ia. 
This  is  a  word  which  the  New  Testament  greatly  ennobled, 
so  that  instead  of  denoting  merely  the  gathering  of  an 
assembly,  or  its  place  of  meeting,  it  came  to  mean  a  com- 
pany of  Christians,  that  is,  persons  who  believed  themselves 
called  by  God  out  of  the  world  of  sin  unto  eternal  life 
through  Jesus  Christ.  Doubtless,  our  own  "ecclesiastic" 
and  "ecclesiasticism,"  and  the  like,  have  been  degraded 
from  this  lofty  plane  far  below  any  level  of  poverty  and 
shame  to  which  even  our  word  "Church"  has  sometimes  been 
reduced.  But  taking  them  in  their  original  strength  and 
beauty,  the  two  expressions  emphasize  the  double  truth  that 
is  fundamental  in  this  whole  discussion:  "Church"  points 
to  a  Kvpio'i,  the  Lord,  the  head  of  the  body;  and  "ecclesias- 
tic" points  to  an  iKKXrjaia  ,  the  members  of  the  body.  It  is 
perhaps  not  altogether  without  significance,  in  the  light 
of  the  religious  dilTerences  between  northern  and  southern 
Europe  since  the  Reformation,  that  the  Teutonic  nations 
adopted  for  their  vernacular  the  word  that  magnifies  the 
invisible  divine  head  of  the  Church,  while  the  Rornance 
nations  gave  the  preference  to  that  which  directs  attention 


15  CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE 

to  the  visible  human  members.  But  that  is  by  the  way. 
The  cardinal  fact  is  that  from  its  earliest  history  the 
Church  appears  as  an  organism,  a  body  with  a  head  and 
members,  sharing,  according  to  their  belief,  a  common  life. 

It  will  have  been  noticed  that  in  what  has  just  been  said,- 
we  have  had  occasion  more  than  once  to  refer  to  the  faith 
of  the  Christian  considered  as  a  Church  member.  Such 
references  have  been  unavoidable,  and  the  fact  of  their 
necessity  is  too  significant  to  be  overlooked.  For  in  the 
last  analysis  the  Church,  as  an  historical  phenomenon,  in- 
deed even  when  viewed  as  a  mere  institute  exerting  a 
peculiar  influence  upon  the  world,  must  be  allowed  to 
possess  some  sort  of  transcendent  life;  in  a  word,  it  must 
somehow  be  causally  related  to  that  special  revelation 
which  is  the  very  principle  of  all  theological  science.  In 
its  inmost  essence  the  idea  of  the  Church  is  a  theological 
idea. 

This  by  no  means  denies  to  philosophy  the  right  she 
claims  of  using  her  own  organon  for  the  investigation 
and  interpretation  of  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  rise  and 
development  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  may  freely  be 
granted  that  many  a  philosophy  of  history  has  been  com- 
posed upon  un-Christian  and  even  anti-Christian  principles, 
which  nevertheless  has  done  relative  justice  to  some 
aspects  of  the  truth  so  far  as  the  Church  is  concerned. 
And  certainly  whoever  has  given  himself  the  pleasure  and 
profit  of  reading  the  eloquent  Phi  Beta  Kappa  Address  of 
the  late  Prof.  Henry  Boynton  Smith,  on  "The  Problem 
of  the  Philosophy  of  History",  will  be  prepared  to  admit 
that  such  a  treatment  of  the  facts  will  always  lead  at  least 
some  minds  to  accept  as  deliverances  of  philosophy — as 
conclusions  of  the  unaided  reason  of  man — precisely  what 
the  Christian,  with  the  open  Bible  before  him,  takes  as 
the  presuppositions  for  all  his  knowledge  alike  of  the  life 
of  the  Church  and  of  that  new  science  of  theology  which 
that  life,  as  by  an  inner  necessity,  was  bound  to  produce.  The 
fact  remains,  however,  that  philosophy  is  prevailingly  too 


CHURCH    HISTORY  AS   A   SCIENCE  IQ 

anthropocentric  to  be  sufficiently  sympathetic  toward  the 
higher  problems  involved  in  the  religious  life  of  the  race; 
that  her  conclusions,  resting  in  this  case  chiefly  upon  his- 
torical data,  can  never  yield  more  than  a  certain  degree 
of  probability,  a  defect  that  needs  must  grieve  the  pious 
heart  that  craves  certitude  as  to  the  alleged  presence  of 
the  Supernatural  in  human  affairs;  above  all,  that  her  in- 
strument of  investigation,  man's  reason  or  understanding, 
is  utterly  unable,  according  to  the  overwhelming  if  not 
unanimous  testimony  of  the  visible  Church  herself,  to  in- 
terpret the  deeper  spiritual  realities  involved  in  this  historic 
evolution. 

But  what  philosophy  cannot  do  in  that  it  is  weak  through 
the  flesh,  theology,  as  the  science  of  the  revealed  knowledge 
of  God,  can  and  does  accomplish,  thanks  to  the  regenerat- 
ing and  illuminating  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  true 
doctor  ecclesiae.  We  here  come  to  first  principles,  which 
to-day,  as  much  as  ever,  are  and  must  be  accepted  by 
some  and  rejected  by  others.  This  lies  in  the  nature  of 
the  central  fact  in  the  moral  experience  of  the  race — the 
universal  presence  of  sin  and  the  still  limited  scope  of  the 
palingenesis  by  which  alone  the  noetic  effects  of  sin  can 
be  removed.  There  is  here  no  room  for  argument  except 
as  between  those  who  start  from  the  same  premises.  Like 
every  other  scientist,  the  theologian  must  begin  with  faith; 
he  must  have  his  presuppositions.  These  he  will  not  try 
to  prove.  For  as  Dr.  Kuyper,  arguing  this  very  point, 
pertinently  concludes:  "Assurance  of  faith  and  demonstra- 
tion are  two  entirely  heterogeneous  things.  And  he  who, 
in  whatever  department,  still  seeks  to  demonstrate  his 
principmm,  simply  shows  that  he  does  not  know  what  is 
to  be  understood  by  a  principium."^  Such,  too,  was  the 
view  of  our  fathers  of  the  Reformed  faith.  As  our  own 
Westminster  Confession  puts  the  matter^speaking  of 
holy  Scripture:  "our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the 
infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority  thereof,  is  from  the 


'  Kuyper,  Encyclopedia  of  Sacred  Th  cology,  E.  T.,   1898,  p.  563. 


20  CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE 

inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and 
with  the  word  in  our  hearts." 

Historically,  therefore,  the  decisive  fact  is  that  of  the 
divine  word  itself.  Either  it  is  seen  shining  in  its  own 
light  or  it  is  not  seen  at  all.  This  does  not  imply  that 
if  a  man  is  unregenerate  and  lacks  this  testimony  of  the 
Spirit,  he  can  in  no  sense  contribute  to  our  knowledge 
of  the  Church  or  do  other  work  in  the  field  of  theological 
science;  but  it  is  quite  clear  that  his  interpretation  of  the 
data  in  their  deeper,  that  is  their  organic  relations,  will 
differ  greatly  from  that  of  the  man  who  finds  in  the  self- 
authenticating  word  of  God  the  seminal  principles  of  the 
entire  development  of  the  Church.  In  a  word,  the  super- 
natural revelation,  containing  as  it  does  among  other  things, 
our  only  information  about  the  origin  of  the  Christian 
Church,  can  be  made  the  object  of  an  adequate  scientific 
treatment  by  the  regenerate  only.  For  "except  one  be 
born  anew" — thus  the  faith  of  the  Church  keeps  re- 
echoing the  assurance  of  her  Founder — he  not  only  "can- 
not enter  into"  but  he  even  "cannot  see" — much  less 
describe — "the  kingdom  of  God." 

According,  therefore,  to  the  ecumenical  Christian  con- 
sciousness, which  alone  can  be  the  subject  of  the  science 
that  is  competent  to  deal  with  the  facts  here  in  question, 
the  Church  is  essentially  a  supernatural  organism  implanted 
within,  or  grafted  upon,  the  natural  life  of  the  race.  It 
is  the  appropriate  self-expression  of  a  new  principle  of 
being,  a  divine  germ,  lodged  in  our  humanity,  namely  the 
special,  recreating,  enlightening,  sustaining,  sanctifying, 
life-transforming  grace  of  God,  which  makes  its  partakers 
"grow  up  in  all  things  into  him,  who  is  the  head,  even 
Christ,  from  whom  all  the  body  fitly  framed  and  knit 
together  through  that  which  every  joint  supplieth,  accord- 
ing to  the  working  in  due  measure  of  each  several  part, 
maketh  the  increase  of  the  body  unto  the  building  up  of 
itself  in  love".  Not  as  a  mere  institute  dispensing  material 
or  even  spiritual  benefits,  but  as  a  life-system  perpetually 


CHURCH    HISTORY  AS   A   SCIENCE  21 

nourished  from  its  own  root;  not  as  a  human  society  but  as 
a  divine  communion;  not  as  a  natural  organization  but  as 
a  supernatural  organism,  is  the  Church  the  house  of  the 
living  God.  Her  origin,  her  nature,  her  task,  her  destiny — 
in  short,  her  history^ — is  intelligible  only  in  the  light  of  her 
relation  to  Christ,  her  head;  that  incarnate  Word  that 
appeared  in  our  humanity  as  a  second,  but  also  as  the 
last  Adam. 

Not  v^^ithout  significance,  for  instance,  is  the  statement 
that  God  sent  his  Son  "when  the  fulness  of  the  time  came". 
For  in  order  that  the  holy  Catholic  Church,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  national  economy  of  the  Old  Covenant, 
might  appear,  two  things  were  necessary:  the  incarnate 
and  the  written  Word.  That  is  to  say,  Christ  had  to  in- 
troduce the  divine  being  itself  into  our  race  and  once  for 
all  bring  the  age-long  redemptive  work  of  God  to  its  or- 
ganic culmination  and  relative  completion,  so  that  the 
formula,  "It  is  finished",  might  always  legitimately  be  ap- 
phed  to  it;  but  further,  to  secure  for  the  benefit  of  a 
permanent  and  universal  Church  the  knowledge  of  these 
redemptive  deeds  and  their  significance,  an  authoritative 
and  trustworthy  record  was  necessary,  precisely  of  the  kind 
given  by  inspiration  of  God  in  the  holy  Scripture.  With 
redemption  and  special  revelation  completed,  and  with  a 
fixed  canon  of  sacred  writings  in  which  the  revealed 
knowledge  of  God  could  be  organically  applied  to  the  whole 
race  in  the  most  permanent,  the  most  universal,  the  most 
constant  and  the  purest  form  possible  to  man,  the  Church 
could  confidently  enter  upon  her  ecumenical  mission. 

Again,  it  is  at  once  obvious  that  in  tracing  the  history 
of  the  Church,  we  are  never  at  liberty  to  identify  the 
spiritual  principle  inherent  in  Christianity  as  a  comprehen- 
sive life-system  with  any  of  its  partial  and  imperfect  em- 
bodiments in  concrete  institutions.  For  practical  purposes, 
to  be  sure,  the  whole  may  most  conveniently  be  studied 
in  its  parts.  But  in  every  true  organism,  the  whole  is 
always  something  other  than,  and  greater  than,  the  sum 


22  CHURCH    HISTORY  AS  A   SCIENCE 

of  its  parts.  We  need  ever  to  reckon  with  the  possibiHty, 
therefore,  that  some  who  are  connected  with  the  visible 
Church  are  not  in  vital  union  with  Christ,  and  contrariwise 
that  some  who  do  not  own  any  branch  of  the  visible  Church 
as  their  mother  nevertheless  share  the  life  of  God  as  their 
Father.  Only  those  called  of  God  and  regenerated  by 
his  Spirit,  whether  with  or  without  means,  make  up  the 
true  ecclesia  that  reflects  a  genuinely  supernatural  life  in 
its  several  marks  of  unity,  holiness,  universality  and  perma- 
nence. On  the  other  hand,  the  Church,  too,  like  the  in- 
dividual Christian,  bears  her  treasures  of  truth  and  grace 
in  earthen  vessels.  Her  spiritual  life  is  indeed  divine,  Hke 
that  of  her  exalted  head  from  whom  it  flows  into  all  her 
members,  but,  like  his,  it  is  a  theanthropic  life,  however 
much,  unlike  his,  it  has  ever  been  and  continues  to  be 
marred  by  sin.  For  regeneration  does  not  destroy  the  sub- 
stance of  the  natural  life;  it  only  quickens  and  energizes 
it  and  brings  it  into  new  relations,  forms  and  functions, 
and  invests  it  with  higher  capacities.  Thus  at  one  time 
the  good  and  at  another  the  evil  elements  in  the  complex 
development  of  the  Church's  life  must  be  emphasized,  the 
former  being  due  to  the  relatively  more  perfect  realization 
of  her  divine  life,  and  the  latter  to  the  temporary  superiority 
of  her  incompletely  sanctified  human  life.  The  wheat  and 
the  tares  grow  side  by  side  in  the  same  field. 

The  task  of  the  Church,  in  the  light  of  what  has  just 
been  said,  can  be  none  other  than  the  progressive  realiza- 
tion of  the  true  idea  of  Christianity.  The  germ  of  the 
divine  life  must  be  given  the  most  favorable  conditions  pos- 
sible in  which  to  grow,  blossom  and  bear  its  fruit, — a  fruit 
that  will  yield  in  turn  seed  after  its  own  kind.  The  gospel 
leaven  must  be  made  to  permeate  human  life  in  all  its  phases, 
activities,  conditions  and  circumstances,  in  every  range  and 
region  of  individual  experience  and  throughout  the  most 
complex  social  institutes.  The  revealed  knowledge  of  God 
is  to  be  spread  over  the  earth  and  appHed,  not  indeed  in- 
dividualistically    to    every    member    of    the    species,    but 


CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE  23 

organicall}-  to  the  race  as  a  whole.  The  regenerate  who 
have  drunk  of  the  water  of  Hfe  must  in  turn  become  foun- 
tains of  living  water  to  other  thirsty  souls.  The  Church 
is,  in  a  word,  to  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  her 
chief  instrument  of  instruction  being  that  divinely  au- 
thoritative written  word  which,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  its  primary  author,  makes  possible  a  permanent  and 
universal  knowledge  of  him,  the  incarnate  Word,  whom  to 
know  is  eternal  life.  The  Church  as  the  body  of  Christ 
is  to  promote  his  dominion  over  the  race,  that  race  which 
was  originally  his  by  the  right  of  creation  and  was  made 
his  anew  by  the  right  of  redemption,  until  at  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  age,  having  received  the  heathen  for  his 
inheritance  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  his 
possession,  he  will  deliver  up  his  mediatorial  kingdom  to 
the  Father,   that   God  may  be   all   in   all. 

We  have  now  analyzed,  and  with  sufficient  precision  de- 
fined the  idea  of  history  and  the  idea  of  the  Church.  We 
need  only  combine  the  results  in  OFder  to  formulate  the 
idea  of  Church  History.  Disregarding  for  the  moment 
the  question  of  separating  the  biblical  from  the  post- 
biblical  kingdom  of  God,  we  may  say  that  in  its  widest 
scope  the  subject-matter  of  our  science,  its  determining 
principle,  is  the  organic  evolution  of  regenerated  humanity ; 
or,  the  genetic  development  of  the  supernatural  life  of 
the  race. 

In  this  statement,  then,  the  Church  is  conceived  as  a 
single,  continuous  historical  economy ;  existing,  indeed,  in 
successive  forms  and  stages — the  Adamic,  the  Patriarchal, 
the  Jewish-National,  the  Apostolic,  and  the  present  Chris- 
tian Church,  but  with  all  its  diversity  having  the  unity  of 
a  true  organism.  There  will  always,  therefore,  be  a  meas- 
ure of  logical  propriety  in  the  arrangement  that  obtains 
in  many  theological  seminaries  by  which  biblical  and 
ecclesiastical  history  are  grouped  together  as  one  course 
or  at  least  under  one  department  of  instruction.  For  in 
its  essence  the  Church  has  ever  been  the  same.     It  never 


24  CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE 

has  been  anything  but  Christian  in  principle.  From  of 
old  the  name  of  the  Christ  has  been  the  only  one  under 
heaven  given  among  men  for  their  salvation.  It  is  impor- 
tant, however,  to  do  full  justice  to  the  principles  of  theo- 
logical encyclopedia  here  involved..  For  not  only  will 
there  have  to  be  a  special  group  of  studies  dealing  with 
the  Scripture  itself  as  the  principle  of  all  theological  science, 
but  in  the  organic  development  of  the  Church  herself  there 
is,  as  we  have  seen,  a  difference  of  fundamental  and  per- 
petual significance  between  the  biblical  and  the  post-biblical 
periods.  Throughout  the  former  her  life  was  always 
supernatural  in  a  double  sense,  or,  better,  in  a  twofold 
manner;  from  the  first  special  revelation  to  the  close  of 
the  apostolic  period,  when  the  organism  of  special  revela- 
tion was  completed,  there  was  a  series  of  miraculous  in- 
terpositions of  divine  power  in  the  course  of  human  affairs ; 
and  then,  besides,  there  was  the  work  of  supernatural  re- 
generation and  illumination  in  the  sphere  of  the  Church's 
subjective  life.  But  after  the  work  of  redemption  was 
brought  to  its  culmination  and  relative  completion  by 
Christ,  and  likewise  the  process  of  special  revelation  by 
him  and  his  apostles,  then  the  life  of  the  Church  became, 
as  it  has  ever  since  remained,  supernatural  in  only  the 
latter  of  the  two  modes  we  have  specified.  The  physical 
miracle  falls  away.  It  is  no  longer  needed.  The  rebirth 
and  the  enlightening  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  sufficient.  As 
for  the  rest,  whether  Pentecost  or  the  close  of  the  first 
century  is  to  be  made  the  terminus  a  quo  for  the  course 
in. Church  History  is  a  mere  matter  of  detail  to  be  deter- 
mined by  considerations  of  expediency. 

From  this  chronological  starting-point,  then,  Church 
History  will  trace  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
through  the  ever-lengthening  Christian  era  to  the  appointed 
consummation  of  the  present  age.  And  since  temporal 
succession  is  the  necessary  form  of  all  becoming,  much 
attention  must  be  given  in  all  historical  studies  to  the  turn- 
ing  points,   the   epochal    stages   in   the   organic   evolution. 


CHURCH    HISTORY  AS   A   SCIENCE  2$ 

For  only  when  historic  movements  are  properly  bounded 
in  time  as  well  as  in  space  can  they  be  visualized  with 
sufficient  distinctness  to  make  possible  a  life-like  repro- 
duction of  them  in  a  narrative.  On  the  other  hand — and 
this  is  the  only  other  remark  we  shall  make  on  this  phase 
of  the  subject — no  chronological  divisions,  much  less  sub- 
divisions, can  have  a  permanently  fixed  value.  For  time  is 
always  changing  the  perspective  through  the  addition  of 
new  fields  of  investigation,  and  historical  science  can  only 
do  justice  to  the  given  state  of  knowledge.  Who,  for 
instance,  would  have  supposed  six  months  ago,  that  the 
year  191 4  would  witness  events  that  will  in  all  likelihood 
necessitate  a  new  major  division  in  world-history  since  the 
Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century? 

Equally  important  in  practice,  though  likewise  incapable 
of  securing  for  themselves  an  absolute  value,  are  the 
material  or  topical  divisions  of  Church  History.  They  are 
necessary  for  the  thorough  mastery  of  the  subject-matter 
as  a  whole.  But  just  because  the  historic  process  is  a  liv- 
ing unity,  it  should  never  be  artificially  dismembered.  Nor 
ought  all  the  periods  to  be  treated  exactly  alike,  as  was 
unfortunately  too  often  the  case  with  some  of  those  older 
manuals,  that  made  their  readers  regard  history  as  a  sort 
of  anatomical  museum  stocked  with  cabinets  of  a  uniform 
size  and  appearance,  each  shelf  accommodating  the  regula- 
tion number  of  skeletons,  the  bones  being  always  about 
as  dry  as  they  were  numerous.  Doubtless  there  will  be 
some  advantage  in  following  in  the  main  the  familiar  lines 
of  cleavage  by  which  one  set  of  facts  is  grouped  for  special 
consideration  as  the  history  of  missions,  the  spread  of 
Christianity  amid  the  favoring  influences  or  the  more  or 
less  determined  hostility  of  the  world ;  another,  as  the  his- 
tory of  the  development  of  the  polity,  the  government  and 
the  discipline  of  the  Church;  another,  as  the  history  of 
ecclesiastical  worship,  with  the  too  often  neglected  story  of 
Christian  art  and  architecture ;  and  still  another,  as  the  history 
of  doctrine  and  dogma,  with  special  reference  to  the  work 


26  CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE 

of  the  constructive  theologians,  the  confessional  formulas, 
and  the  contemporary  philosophies  of  the  various  periods. 
But  the  final,  because  the  onl}^  adequate  category  for  every 
historical  development  is  that  of  the  human  personality 
taken  as  a  whole.  Every  man's  life  is  something  more 
than  the  sum  total  of  his  thoughts,  words,  and  deeds.  It 
cannot  be  known  apart  from  these  manifestations  of  itself, 
but  their  highest  scientific  value  to  the  historian  is  that 
of  enlarging  his  capacity  to  know  that  life  itself  in  its 
inmost  nature,  in  its  unuttered  residuum,  in  its  hidden 
potentialities  as  well  as  in  its  partial  expressions.  And 
a  fortiori  the  life  of  the  Church,  the  history  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  must  be  studied  now  from  one  and  now  from 
another  of  literally  countless  points  of  view;  now  in  its 
quiescent  states  and  now  in  its  varied  movements;  now  in 
its  religious,  its  devotional,  its  God-ward  aspects,  now  in 
in  its  introspective  moods,  and  again  in  its  energizing  in- 
fluence upon  every  condition,  circumstance,  relation  and 
activity  alike  of  individuals,  families,  tribes,  nations,  states, 
races,  and  all  social  groups  whatsoever, — so  far  as  these 
effects  and  interactions  may  be  seen  to  have  a  bearing  upon 
the  organic  development  of  the  regenerated  life  of 
humanity. 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  principles,  we  may  now 
more  accurately  set  forth  the  relation  between  ecclesiastical 
and  general  history.  The  former  is,  in  the  first  instance, 
a  species  of  the  latter.  Generically,  there  is  and  can  be  but 
one  science  of  history.  For  the  human  race  is  a  single 
organism,  and  in  their  essence  the  facts  of  man-life  in  this 
world  are  all  of  a  piece.  For  holiness,  communion  with 
God,  is  the  original  as  well  as  the  ultimate  history  of  hu- 
manity. When  the  race  fell,  it  fell  as  a.  whole ;  when  it  will 
have  been  redeemed,  it  will  have  been  redeemed  as  a  whole : 
not  in  the  sense  that  every  twig  and  leaf  will  have  been 
saved,  but  in  the  sense  that  the  life  of  the  tree  as  such  will 
have  been  saved.  The  parts  cast  off  perish  as  disjecta 
memhra;  the  parts  preserved  unto  life  eternal  are  kept  in 


CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A    SCIENCE  2/ 

organic  union  with  the  ever-Hving  root.  But  because  re- 
generation is  only  the  beginning  of  a  many-sided  process 
that  requires  nothing  short  of  a  Hfe-time  to  bring  its  fruits 
unto  perfection,  the  spiritual  man  will  necessarily  retain 
to  the  very  end  of  his  days  many  of  the  relations,  forms, 
and  activities — in  a  word,  the  sinful  elements — of  the 
natural  life.  And  the  same  is  true  of  the  evolution  of  the 
race  as  a  whole.  Accordingly,  history  in  the  subjective 
sense  must  reflect  this  state  of  affairs,  and  hence,  as  re- 
gards the  entire  problem  of  the  methodology  of  history, 
there  can  be  only  one  heuristic,  or  the  science  that  deals 
with  the  nature  of  the  sources  of  history,  including  the 
auxiliaries  we  have  already  named, — philology,  palaeo- 
graphy, diplomacy,  geography,  chronology,  etc. ;  only  one 
theory  of  historical  criticism,  or  the  science  that  determines 
the  value  of  these  sources;  only  one  hermeneutics,  or  the 
science  that  unfolds  the  valid  principles  of  interpretation; 
and  likewise  only  one  art  of  historical  composition,  the 
synthetic  presentation  in  the  form  of  a  written  narrative 
of  the  results  secured  by  the  three  processes  just  named. 
Moreover,  because  religion,  whether  as  the  love  of  the 
Father,  or  as  the  love  of  the  world,  is  ever  the  deepest 
concern  and  the  regnant  power  in  every  life,  even  general 
history  is  absolutely  unintelligible  apart  from  the  religious 
experiences  of  the  race.  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  there- 
fore, ecclesiastical  and  general  history  will  often  deal  with 
the  very  same  facts. 

But  this  is  not  the  whole  truth  concerning  the  relation 
of  these  two  branches  of  knowledge  to  each  other.  For 
on  the  one  hand,  so  far  as  even  their  present  development 
is  concerned,  they  view  the  same  data  from  different 
standpoints.  General  history  regards  the  historic  process 
as  the  evolution  of  humanity;  ecclesiastical  history  re- 
gards it  as  the  evolution  of  regenerated  humanity.  The 
former  contemplates  the  human  agents  as  men;  the  latter, 
as  Christian  men.  The  former  deals  with  society  as  a 
natural  organism;  the  latter,  as  a  spiritual  organism.    The 


2S  CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE 

former  sees  God  in  human  affairs  in  his  providential  ac- 
tivity only,  if  at  all;  the  latter  beholds  him  also  in  his 
work  of  grace  for,  and  in,  and  through  sinners.  This  of 
itself  leads  to  a  characteristic  difference  in  the  valuation 
of  the  self-same  elements  in  the  historic  development.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  relation  of  the  two  processes  of  evolu- 
tion to  each  other  is  constantly  changing,  and  this 
necessitates  a  continuous  readjustment  of  the  boundary 
lines  between  ecclesiastical  and  general  history.  For  the 
Church,  the  kingdom  of  God,  Christianity,  is  conquering 
the  world.  The  leaven  is  leavening  the  whole  lump.  Rapid 
as  may  be  the  expansion  of  the  natural  life  of  the  race 
in  some  periods,  yet  on  the  whole  the  development  of  its 
spiritual  hfe  takes  place  at  a  still  more  rapid  and  an  ever 
accelerating  rate  of  progress.  In  nature  it  is  never  possible, 
but  in  the  realm  of  grace  it  has  often  occurred,  that  a 
nation  is  born  in  a  day.  And  quite  apart  from  the  extra- 
ordinary Pentecostal  seasons  of  spiritual  awakening,  we 
need  to  remember  that  redemption  is  destined  to  be  a 
cosmic  process,  transcending  the  boundaries  of  the  human 
race  itself,  so  that  the  history  of  the  Church  must  one  day 
be  the  truly  universal  history.  We  ought  not,  therefore, 
to  conceive  of  the  natural  and  the  supernatural  develop- 
ment of  humanity  as  two  endless  parallel  lines;  nor  even 
as  the  two  foci  of  an  ellipse,  from  which,  so  to  say,  two 
independent  and  mutually  exclusive  evolutionary  processes 
are  trying  to  occupy  contiguous  or  perchance  the  same 
territory  lying  in  the  one  given  plane;  but  rather  as  two 
spheres  of  organic  life :  one,  the  Church,  the  spiritual 
order,  being  enclosed  within  the  other,  the  world-order; 
each  proceeding  from  the  same  original  centre  in  the 
natural  and  spiritual  life  of  the  first  head  of  the  race; 
each  expanding  and  striving,  against  the  opposition  of  the 
other,  to  fill  the  whole  realm  of  possible  human  interests; 
but  the  final  result  of  the  conflict  being  that  "the  kingdom 
of  the  world  is  become  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and 
of    his    Christ."      More    and    more,    therefore,    the    very 


CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   SCIENCE  29 

ground  for  the  distinction  between  sacred  and  secular 
history  is  destined  to  vanish.  Meanwhile,  let  it  not  be  for- 
gotten that  the  only  reason  that  we  may  regard  the  entire 
historic  process  as  a  holy  one  is  that  the  thrice  holy  God 
has,  in  his  infinite  mercy,  made  it  possible  for  the  race 
as  such  to  be  a  partaker  of  his  own  holiness  by  means 
of  the  double  gift  of  his  grace — a  special  revelation  of 
redemption,  preserved  in  the  holy  Scripture,  and  the  re- 
generating, enlightening  and  sanctifying  Holy  Spirit,  by 
whose  power,  in  this  present  dispensation,  the  holy  Cath- 
olic Church  is  summing  up  all  things  in  its  head,  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  In  him,  and  in  him  alone,  all  contradictions 
are  reconciled.  In  the  light  of  his  cross,  and  there  alone, 
do  we  find  the  true  principle  of  an  adequate  philosophy 
of  history.  He  is  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the  first  and 
the  last,  the  beginning  and  the  end,  alike  of  all  creation, 
of  all  revelation,  and  of  all  redemption.  "All  things  have 
been  created  through  him,  and  unto  him;  and  he  is  be- 
fore all  things;  and  in  him  all  thin^gs  consist.  And  he 
is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  church;  who  is  the  beginning, 
the  first-born  from  the  dead;  that  in  all  things  he  might 
have  the  preeminence.  For  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of 
the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  the  fulness  dwell ;  and 
through  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself,  having 
made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross;  through  him 
I  say,  whether  things  upon  the  earth,  or  things  in  the 
heavens." 

Such,  then,  as  we  conceive  it,  is  the  idea  of  Church 
History  as  a  science.  The  Church  being  the  congregation 
of  .saints,  the  communion  of  the  faithful,  the  body  of 
Christ,  the  history  of  the  Church  here  on  earth  is  the 
organic  evolution  in  this  present  world  of  the  spiritual, 
the  supernatural,  or  the  redeemed  life  of  humanity.  It  is 
a  process,  therefore,  whose  deepest  significance  is  intelligible 
only  in  the  light  of  Christian  theology — that  knowledge 
of  God  which  has  become  possible  for  us  through  special 
revelation.     It  is  not  enough  for  the  Church  historian  to 


3©       CHURCH    HISTORY    AS    A    THEOLOGICAL    DISCIPLINE 

be  a  theist;  for  as  even  the  rationalistically  inclined 
Gieseler  had  to  acknowledge :  "he  cannot  penetrate 
into  the  internal  character  of  the  phenomena  of  Church 
history  without  a  Christian  religious  spirit."  ^  In  other 
words,  if  theology  is  the  science  whose  special  task  it  is 
to  reflect  in  our  consciousness  the  revealed  knowledge  of 
God,  then  Church  History  must  needs  be  a  branch  of  theo- 
logical science;  for  outside  of  the  Church,  as  the  society 
of  the  regenerate,  there  is  and  can  be  no  true  theology. 
In  fact,  our  science  is  determined  in  the  last  analysis  by 
those  same  three  theological  factors  that  determine  the 
entire  circle  of  the  theological  sciences :  the  word  of  God 
which  was  in  due  time  recorded  in  the  Scriptures ;  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  his  regenerating  and  illuminating  work;  and  the 
organically  connected  members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  or 
the  Church.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  Church 
History  has  always,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  flourished  best 
in  the  congenial  soil  of  the  theological  sciences,  and  that, 
among  these,  it  has  necessarily  held  a  place  of  usefulness 
and  honor  second  to  no  other. 

We  turn,  therefore,  to  a    brief    consideration    of    the 
remaining  division  of  our  subject. 


II.     Church  History  as  a  Theological  Discipline 

In  trying  to  characterize  the  specific  discipline  inculcated 
by  our  science  as  prosecuted  in  this  and  similar  institutions 
of  sacred  learning,  we  may  consider,  first,  its  distinctively 
scientific  value,  and  then  its  other' — if  the  term  will  not 
be  taken  in  too  narrow  a  sense — more  "practical"  benefits. 

The  strictly  scientific  uses  of  Church  History  can  per- 
haps most  advantageously  be  presented  by  means  of  a  rapid 
survey  of  its  relations  to  the  other  departments  of 
theological  instruction. 

According  to  the  customary  division  of  theological 
studies,    there    are,    besides    Church    History,  three   main 


Gieseler,  Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte,  I  §  5. 


CHURCH    HISTORY    AS    A    THEOLOGICAL    DISCIPLINE       3 1 

groups :  one  dealing  with  the  Scripture  as  the  principle 
of  all  theological  science,  that  is,  then,  the  word  of  God 
as  such;  another  with  dogma,  or  the  content  of  the  word 
as  systematically  reflected  in  the  understanding  of  re- 
generate humanity;  and  another  with  the  sacred  offices 
instituted  for  the  maintenance  and  the  propagation  of  the 
word.  To  all  these,  though  to  each  in  a  different  way, 
Church  History  sustains  the  intimate,  vital  connections 
that  betoken  truly  organic  relations.  Indeed,  only  in  the 
processes  of  history  can  we  get  a  satisfactory  view  of  the 
way  in  which  every  part  of  the  tree  of  theological  science 
becomes  reciprocally  a  means  and  an  end  with  respect  to 
every  other.     But  let  us  particularize. 

Logically  and  chronologically  first  in  the  organism  of 
scientific  theology  is  that  group  of  studies  which  deals  with 
the  word  of  God,  more  accurately,  the  Scripture,  as  such. 
Of  these  a  considerable  number  are  strictly  propaedeutic — ; 
biblical  philology,  biblical  archaeology  (including  biblical 
chronology  and  geography),  biblical  hermeneutics,  and 
biblical  isagogics  (including  the  lower  and  the  higher 
criticism  of  the  Bible).  These  need  not  now  detain 
us.  Their  importance  is  due  to  that  to  which  they  lead, 
and  for  which  they  prepare,  the  student  of  theology.  In- 
asmuch, however,  as  they  ordinarily  flourish  only  within 
the  realm  of  ecclesiastical  life,  Church  History,  as  the 
narrative  of  that  life,  will  have  occasion  to  record  their 
progress,  call  attention  to  their  deficiencies,  inspire  the 
necessary  efforts  for  their  improvement,  and  thus  render 
them  many  incidental  benefits.  To  Church  History 
as  a  science  belongs,  in  particular,  the  honor  of  having 
inaugurated,  as  early  as  the  age  of  the  Renaissance,  that 
really  critical  study  of  ancient  documents  which  has  de- 
veloped into  the  exceedingly  important  science  of  modern 
literary  criticism.  As  for  biblical  canonics,  this  is  in  the 
main  an  historical  discipline,  and  its  chief  materials,  so  far 
as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned,  are  to  be  found 
specifically  in  the  domain  of  the  Church's  early  history. 


2,2       CHURCH    HISTORY    AS    A    THEOLOGICAL    DISCIPLINE 

But  the  queen  in  this  sisterhood  of  bibhcal  studies  is  that 
which  is  often  used  to  give  its  name  to  the  whole  group, 
exegesis,  culminating  in  biblical  theology  as  the  science 
that  exhibits  the  revelation  of  God  in  its  organic  historical 
development.  In  view  of  what  has  already  been  said  con- 
cerning the  "truth  and  divine  authority"  of  Holy  Scripture 
as  the  very  principle  of  theological  science,  it  is  plain,  on 
the  one  hand,  that  Church  History  will  be  deeply  indebted 
to  these  exegetical  disciplines.  For  the  great  central  ideas 
that  organize  and  animate  the  biblical  consciousness  are 
the  very  ones  that  are  constantly  giving  fresh  impulses 
to  the  development  of  the  spiritual  life  of  the  race.  In 
fact,  there  is  no  movement  of  prime  significance  in  this 
whole  sphere  that  cannot  be  traced  back  to  some  germinant 
scriptural  truth.  Morever,  both  according  to  its  own 
claim  and  according  to  the  witness  of  history,  the  Bible 
is  itself  the  only  sufficient  test  of  human  life,  especially 
of  its  moral  values,  the  supreme  arbiter  of  man's  character, 
conduct  and  destiny.  History  needs  precisely  such  a 
criterion,  and  only  the  scientific  study  of  the  Bible  can 
put  this  boon  into  the  historian's  hands.  And  above  all, 
biblical  theology,  just  because  it  sets  forth  the  organic 
progress  of  supernatural  revelation  in  the  Scripture, 
presents  an  invaluable  norm  for  the  interpretation  of  the 
kindred  development  that  constitutes  the  subject-matter  of 
Church  History — the  supernatural  life  of  man  begotten 
of  the  word  and  the  Spirit  of  God.  For  biblical  theology, 
though  it  deals  with  an  evolution  that  is  somewhat  narrowly 
limited  in  time,  nevertheless,  because  of  the  unique  and 
final  character  of  that  process,  sounds  those  full  and  funda- 
mental tones  that  make  up  the  chord  of  the  dominant  in 
the  noblest  harmonies  that  human  life  has  been  able  to 
produce  ever  since  it  came  under  the  power  of  the  law 
given  by  Moses  and  the  grace  and  truth  that  came  by 
Jesus  Christ.  But  on  the  other  hand,  Church  History,  in 
turn,  furnishes  indispensable  aid  to  the  exegetical  theo- 
logians.    Quite  apart  from  the  knowledge  which  it  alone 


CHURCH   HISTORY  AS  A  THEOLOGICAL  DISCIPLINE         33 

can  supply  them  concerning  the  history  of  interpretations, 
concerning  the  historic  improvements  of  their  scientific 
methods  and  tools,  and  concerning  the  special  needs  of 
their  department  in  their  own  day.  Church  History  often 
furnishes  the  data  that  make  it  safe  to  reject  some  inter- 
pretations as  no  longer  worth  trying,  or  wise  to  adopt 
others  as  probable.  Especially  in  the  exegesis  of  predictive 
prophecies  has  many  an  overconfident  subject! vist  been 
put  to  grief  by  the  stern,  hard  facts  of  history.  And  in 
general,  as  in  other  fields  of  scientific  investigation,  so 
here,  the  limitations,  errors,  and  dangers  attending  the 
exercise  of  the  unquestioned  right  of  private  judgment, 
can  be  best  overcome,  or  avoided,  by  the  more  thorough 
cultivation  of  the  historic,  that  is  the  universal,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  individualistic  spirit.  But  above  all, 
history  is  itself  the  best  commentary  on  the  Bible.  Chris- 
tianity is  what  it  is  in  history.  In  history,  the  ideas  of 
the  word  realize  themselves,  and  this  multiform,  continuous 
process  is  ever  shedding  new  light  •  upon  the  meaning 
of  the  spiritual  energies  and  potencies  stored  up  in  those 
Scriptures  through  which  we  most  fully  come  to 
know  him  "in  whom  are  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge  hidden".  The  circle  into  which  our  reasoning 
here  falls  is  a  necessary  but  not  a  vicious  one.  For  in  history 
the  word  of  God  keeps  producing  its  characteristic  effects ; 
and  these  effects  in  turn  explain  their  cause.  Exegetical  and 
historical  theology  are  mutually  helpful. 

The  scientific  value  of  Church  History  will  appear  greater 
still,  when  we  examine  its  relation  to  systematic  theology 
(including  the  introductory  and  supplementary  sciences  of 
apologetics  and  biblical  ethics). 

For,  in  the  first  place,  systematic  theology  is  absolutely 
dependent  upon  Church  History.  This  is  not  to  be  taken 
in  any  anti-Protestant  sense,  as  if  the  dogmatician  makes 
the  historical  apprehension  of  revelation,  and  not  the 
revelation  itself,  the  subject-matter  of  his  science.     The 


34       CHURCH    HISTORY    AS    A    THEOLOGICAL    DISCIPLINE 

fact  remains,  however,  that  suo  jure  Hie  is  always  first, 
antedating  all  scientific  reflection.  And  in  particular,  with 
respect  to  our  truly  scientific  knowledge  of  God,  there  was, 
and  there  could  be,  no  theology,  until  after  the  Church  had 
been  in  existence  long  enough  to  discern  at  least  some  of 
the  organic  relations  of  revealed  truth.  For  the  subject  of 
theological  science  is  not  the  Christian  individual  but  the 
Church,  the  communion  of  the  faithful,  the  society  of  the 
regenerate.  And  as  no  science  can  prosper  save  as  it  is  cul- 
tivated by  those  who  stand  in  organic  relations  with  its 
subject-matter  and  with  one  another,  so  the  theologian, 
if  his  work  is  to  be  fruitful,  must  always  connect  his 
personal  efforts  with  the  results  already  achieved  by  those 
who,  as  members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  being  regenerated 
and  guided  by  the  Spirit,  have  helped  the  Church  to  appre- 
hend the  revealed  knowledge  of  God  in  its  organic,  that 
is,  its  truly  scientific  character.  Commonly,  as  we  know, 
the  dogmatician  occupies  a  definite  confessional  standpoint, 
and  this  position  of  itself  will  ordinarily  guarantee  his 
vital  contact  with  legitimate  and  suitable  lines  of  theological 
construction.  He  never  presumes,  if  he  is  a  really  qualified 
worker,  to  perform  his  arduous  task  as  a  system-builder, 
by  trying  to  lay  anew,  through  an  independent  study  of 
Scripture,  the  very  foundations  of  his  structure,  but  rather, 
like  those  skilled  architects  succeeding  one  another  age 
after  age  in  the  common  effort  to  finish  some  stately  old 
cathedral,  he  will  strive  to  complete,  perchance  to  restore 
or  to  correct,  the  work  of  his  predecessors.  In  short,  the 
history  of  Christian  dogma  and  doctrine  will  furnish  him 
with  his  choicest  materials,  critically  sifted  and  properly 
estimated  as  to  their  scientific  value.  With  these  in  his 
possession,  he  needs  must  re-examine  all  his  data  in  the 
light  of  the  basal  principles  of  his  science,  the  teachings 
of  holy  Scripture.  He  will  thus  not  repeat  the  error  of 
Scholasticism,  which  conceived  it  as  its  chief  business  to 
defend  and  confirm  its  historic  confession.  Nor  will  he 
hesitate,  in  his  own  use  of  the  Bible,  to  trust  the  guidance 


CHURCH   HISTORY  AS  A  THEOLOGICAL  DISCIPLINE         35 

of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  true  doctor  ecclcsiae  for  the 
Church  of  his  own,  as  of  every  other  age.  But  he  will 
always  find  the  secret  both  of  his  genuine  scripturality 
and  of  his  most  fruitful  theological  productivity  by  enter- 
ing, with  due  reverence  and  humility,  but  likewise  with 
genial  independence,  into  the  labors  of  the  ecumenical 
Christian  spirit  as  the  best  aid  to  his  understanding  of  the 
inspired  mind. 

Again,  Church  History  is  a  necessary  supplement  to 
dogmatic  theology.  For  by  its  very  definition,  this  latter 
science  seeks  to  know,  not  what  has  been  or  is  now  held 
to  be  true,  but  only  what  is  ideally  true,  concerning  God 
and  his  relations  to  the  world ;  not  what  men  have  believed, 
but  what  they  ought  to  believe.  Accordingly,  dogmatics 
is  essentially  a  static  presentation  of  the  content  of  Chris- 
tianity. It  is  a  group  of  facts,  doctrines,  principles,  con- 
cepts, theories,  speculations,  all  reduced,  as  the  phrase  is,  to 
a  system.  For  that  very  reason,  however,  it  can  never 
embrace  and  reproduce  all  our  knowledge  of  God,  but  only 
our  scientific  knowledge  of  God.  But  this  is,  always 
has  been  and  must  ever  continue  to  be,  but  a 
small  part  of  the  great  boon  which  has  come  to  our  race 
through  the  revelation  recorded  in  the  Bible.  The  fact  is 
that  Christianity  itself  entered  the  world  not  as  a  dogma, 
but  as  a  historic  process,  and  that  from  the  very  beginning, 
when  as  yet  there  was,  and  could  be  no  theological  science, 
the  Church  nevertheless  had  a  knowledge  of  God  that 
was  sufficient  for  all  except  her  purely  scientific  needs. 
Moreover,  to  this  day,  theological,  like  all  other  science, 
can  be  the  concern  of  only  a  relatively  small  part  of  man- 
kind. But  this  other,  this  more  general  but  likewise  more 
vital,  experiential  knowledge  of  God,  can  and  does  flow 
directly  from  the  Bible  to  all  who  enter  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  No  doubt  the  Spirit  of  God  has  special  blessings 
to  bestow  upon  the  Church  through  her  scientific  expo- 
sitions of  the  Scripture,  but  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of 
divine  grace  be   it  said,   he  likewise   makes  not   only   the 


36       CHURCH    HISTORY    AS    A    THEOLOGICAL    DISCIPLINE 

preaching,  but  even  the  reading  of  the  word  "an  effectual 
means  of  convincing  and  converting  sinners  and  of  build- 
ing them  up  in  holiness  and  comfort  through  faith  unto 
salvation".  That  is  to  say,  even  the  non-scientific  knowl- 
edge of  God  constantly  operates  to  produce  the  character- 
istic effects  of  the  divine  word.  But  to  trace  these  in  all 
their  organic  relations  throughout  the  whole  development 
of  the  spiritual  life  of  the  race  is  the  very  task  of  Church 
History,  a  task  which  dogmatics  cannot  perform  just  be- 
cause it  is  not  an  historical  but  only  a  normative  science. 
It  can,  indeed,  rationalize  the  entire  historic  evolution  and 
abstract  therefrom  and  embody  in  its  system  an  important 
series  of  ideal  coefficients.  But  the  real  efficiencies  of  the 
movement  it  has  no  means  of  presenting.  It  cannot  re- 
produce in  their  concrete  reahty  the  manifold  and  multi- 
form workings  of  the  divine  word  upon  the  whole  world 
of  human  life.  The  basal  importance  of  all  this  appears 
only  when  we  apprehend  the  deeper  significance  of  the 
Scripture  as  the  principle  of  our  theological  science.  Then 
we  can  never  rest  satisfied  with  the  metaphors  that  make 
the  Bible  a  mere  quarry  of  limestone  or  marble,  or  per- 
chance a  mine  of  gold  or  precious  stones.  It  is  this;  but 
it  is  much  more.  It  is  a  dynamic.  It  is  a  hammer;  it  is  a 
sword;  it  is  a  fructifying  shower;  nay,  it  is  a  seed;  it 
is  living  and  active;  it  is  spirit  and  it  is  life.  And,  there- 
fore, to  obtain  the  fullest  possible  knowledge  of  God,  we 
must  study  the  word  not  only  in  its  states  of  equilibrium 
and  quiescence,  as  reflected  in  a  body  of  divinity;  but 
also  in  its  movements,  its  salient  energies,  its  germinant 
accomplishments,  its  total  impact  upon  the  life  of  man, 
as  these  are  reflected  in  ecclesiastical  history,  the  narrative 
of  the  age-long  evolution  of  regenerate  humanity  under 
the  power  of  the  divine  word  and  Spirit.  What  the 
dogmatician  calls  an  idea  the  historian  sees  at  work  as 
a  living  force.  And  how  much  richer  and  fuller,  for  ex- 
ample, does  my  knowledge  concerning  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication   by    faith    become,    when,    with    all    the    aid    the 


CHURCH   HISTORY  AS  A  THEOLOGICAL  DISCIPLINE        ^^J 

systematic  theologian  can  give  me  by  way  of  defining  this 
truth  in  a  formula,  and  relating  it  to  the  other  truths  of 
his  system,  I  see  the  principle  itself  take  shape  in  the 
heroic  soul  of  a  Martin  Luther,  become  th'e  inspiration 
of  a  great  evangelical  Church,  and  bring  a  whole  continent 
to  a  new  birth  first  of  spiritual  and  then  of  civil  and 
political  freedom.  Only  in  its  action  can  the  divine  idea 
exhibit  to  the  full  its  "power  of  an  endless  life".  The 
glory  of  the  fountain  is  the  volume  and  might  of  the 
majestic  river.  Not  in  the  least  do  we  detract  from  the 
impressive  grandeur  and  magnificence  of  any  of  the  famous 
sanctuaries  reared  by  the  architectonic  genius  of  the 
theological  system-builder;  but  to  Church  History  belongs 
the  honor,  the  unique  distinction,  of  exhibiting  the  total 
knowledge  of  God  in  the  noblest  and  most  comprehensive 
synthesis  possible — a  synthesis  quite  too  vast  to  be  embodied 
in  any  set  of  logical  formulas,  the  synthesis  of  the  life 
which  alone  is  capacious  enough  to  hold  all  the  elements  of 
the  Church  of  God  in  its  world-embracing  historical  de- 
velopment. In  short,  it  is  only  through  the  Church,  in 
the  sum  of  its  varied  activities,  that  what  Paul  calls  the 
manifold,  the  much-variegated  wisdom  of  God  can  be  made 
known  alike  unto  us  here  on  earth  and  "unto  the  prin- 
cipalities and  powers  in  the  heavenly  places".  Only  in  a 
historic  narrative,  only  by  means  of  a  dramatic  representa- 
tion, such  as  the  inspired  Scripture  itself  had  to  make 
use  of,  can  the  knowledge  of  God  in  its  fulness  be  repro- 
duced for  our  contemplation  and  appropriation.  Church 
History  is  a  necessary  supplement  to  dogmatic  theology. 
And  in  the  third  place,  Church  History  is  of  inestimable 
benefit  to  the  systematic  theologian  because  it  inculcates  in 
him  the  right  temper  for  his  scientific  labors.  It  delivers 
him  from  the  temptation  which  alas !  too  often  has  become 
his  besetting  sin,  the  harsh  and  repellent  dogmatism  that 
so  readily  degenerates  into  rancor  and  makes  it  next  to 
impossible  for  him  to  grasp  the  truth  in  its  ripeness  and 
rotundity.     No  doubt,   Church  historians  as  a  class  have 


38       CHURCH    HISTORY    AS    A    THEOLOGICAL    DISCIPLINE 

been  quite  too  often  the  victims  of  the  opposite  vice,  the 
theological  indifferentism  and  latitudinarianism  that  makes 
them  color-blind  with  respect  to  important  phases  of  doc- 
trinal controversies.  In  this  respect,  Eusebius,  "the  father 
of  Church  History",  has  had  altogether  too  many  admirers 
and  imitators.  Nevertheless,  the  historic  spirit  is  the  gen- 
eral, the  universal,  the  racial  spirit,  and  as  such  the  truly 
human  and  humane  spirit.  We  hear  little  to-day,  and  we 
ought  to  be  duly  grateful  for  the  fact,  of  that  dreadful 
malady  with  which,  for  instance,  many  of  the  great  and 
good  men  of  the  Reformation  were  so  grievously  afflicted, 
the  rabies  theologorum,  a  disease  for  which  no  preventive 
or  antidote  was  found,  until  the  nineteenth  century,  with 
its  unprecedented  interest  in  historical  science,  discovered 
an  efficacious  one  and  gave  it  a  fitting  name — historical- 
mindedness.  In  the  clear  dry  light  of  history,  men  began 
to  see  that  heresy,  if  a  real  error,  is  only  an  excrescence,  hav- 
ing no  abiding  place  in  the  organism  of  theological  science ; 
that  orthodoxy  cannot  perish  from  the  earth  while  a  single 
hidden  root  retains  its  hold  upon  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus  Christ;  and  that  so  far  as  the  human  personalities 
are  concerned,  no  one  on  either  side  lives  consistently 
by  the  logic  of  his  scientific  propositions,  but  is  now 
better,  and  now  worse,  than  his  creed.  History  gives 
theological  opinion  its  proper  life-context,  and  thus 
enables  even  the  polemic  writer  to  differ  in  generous  and 
genial  fashion  from  his  foe,  and  to  realize  the  noble  apostolic 
precept  of  "professing  the  truth  in  love." 

But  if  Church  History  confers  such  great  benefits  upon 
the  sciences  in  the  exegetical  and  dogmatic  departments, 
its  service  in  behalf  of  the  so-called  practical  theological 
disciplines  is  still  more  important.  For  it  is  the  peculiarity 
of  all  these  studies  that  they  have  a  technical  purpose  in 
view.  Their  problem  is  that  of  the  effective  propagation 
of  the  word  of  God  for  the  maintenance  and  promotion 
of  the  life  of  the  Church  in  all  its  phases.  The  scientific 
principles  which  underlie  the  technique  all  pertain  to  the 


CHURCH   HISTORY  AS  A  THEOLOGICAL  DISCIPLINE         39 

methods  by  which  these  several  tasks,  in  the  pastoral  office, 
the  work  of  the  pulpit,  the  instruction  of  the  young,  the 
administration  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  are  to  be  accom- 
plished. But  he  who  asks  how  a  thing  can  best  be  done 
will  invariably  ask  how  others  have  tried  to  do  it.  His- 
tory alone  can  give  the  complete  answer,  with  the  data 
for  an  adequate  critique  of  the  various  solutions  of  these 
practical  problems.  Commonly  enough,  to  be  sure,  pro- 
fessors in  these  departments  content  themselves  with  recent 
history;  their  own  experience  is  likely  to  be  the  chief  source 
from  which  they  draw  their  counsels  and  precepts.  But 
the  accumulated  wisdom  of  the  centuries  ought  not  to  be 
ignored.  In  fine,  an  historical  knowledge  of  Christianity 
is  an  indispensable  prerequisite  for  the  most  successful 
cultivation  of  the  practical  theological  disciplines.  It  alone 
can  interpret  for  them  the  living  present  to  whose  needs 
they  are  to  minister.  It  alone  can  help  them  to  a  discovery 
of  their  special  and  peculiar  tasks.  Above  all,  the  com- 
prehensive empiricism  of  history  will  g4ve  them  their  most 
valuable  materials — those  that  will  best  illustrate  the 
theoretical  principles  necessary  for  the  practical  guidance 
of  the  student. 

Even  if,  therefore,  we  had  nothing  more  to  say  con- 
cerning the  disciplinary  value  of  Church  History,  these 
varied,  strictly  scientific  benefits  would  alone  warrant 
Melanchthon's  judgment:  Praecipue  historia  opus  est 
in  ecclesia.  History,  we  may  say,  gives  theological  science 
as  a  whole  its  best  insight  into  its  own  nature — its  tasks, 
its  methods,  its  problems,  its  prospects.  Theology  has  no 
greater  need  to-day  than  just  that  of  applying  in  all  its 
branches  the  sharpened  instruments  and  perfected  methods 
of  that  historical  science  which,  even  in  speculative  Ger- 
many, has  acquired  the  ascendency  over  all  other  sciences, 
and  which,  throughout  at  least  the  western  world,  has  be- 
come in  things  intellectual  the  proudest  boast  of  this  last 
century.  And  especially,  therefore,  in  this  new  country 
and  this  youthful  nation  of  ours,  where,  just  because  of 


40       CHURCH    HISTORY    AS    A    THEOLOGICAL    DISCIPLINE 

our  comparative  lack  of  historic  sense,  we  have  too  often 
sHghted  the  sohd,  well-tested  historic  realities  of  other 
lands,  and  in  consequence  have  had  so  much  to  suffer  from 
all  sorts  of  theological  Philistinism,  morbid  religiosity, 
pseudo-faiths,  and  ecclesiastical  humbuggery,  students  for 
the  ministry  will  do  well  to  remember  that  history  is  that 
science  whose  special  business  it  is  to  emphasize  the  or- 
ganic character  of  the  truly  progressive  life  of  humanity, 
that  among  the  historical  sciences  Church  History  must 
ever  be  entitled  to  the  highest  place,  and  that  as  such  it 
can  be  second  to  none  among  the  theological  sciences. 

But  the  scientific  uses  of  Church  History  are  not  the 
only,  or  even  the  most  important  benefits  of  this  discipline. 
We  need  to  remember  that  the  primary  function  of  a 
theological  seminary  is  the  making  of  "good  ministers  of 
Christ  Jesus",  men  who  will  be  ''furnished  completely  unto 
every  good  work"  in  the  service  of  the  Church.  Important 
as  are  the  claims  of  theological  learning,  they  ought  never 
to  be  magnified  in  such  a  way  as  to  relegate  to  a  subor- 
dinate position  the  practical  aims  for  which  institutions 
like  this  were  called  into  being.  We  shall  not  retract  or 
qualify  a  single  statement  we  have  made  concerning  the 
need  for  every  theological  student  in  these  days  of  a 
thoroughly  scientific  training.  But  we  cannot  forget  that 
life  is  many-sided;  that  it  has  other  and  higher  concerns 
than  those  of  the  intellect;  that  truth  is  in  order  to  holiness, 
and  that  knowledge  must  lead  to  service.  To  know  is 
good;  to  do  well  is  better;  but  to  be  what  one  ought  to 
be — this  is  the  whole  of  life.  Every  student  for  the  min- 
istry should  strive  to  make  himself  as  much  of  an  expert 
in  theological  science  as  possible;  but  he  can  do  this  only 
by  becoming  something  greater  and  nobler,  like  that  beloved 
disciple  who  leaned  on  Jesus'  bosom  and  most  fully  caught 
the  mind  of  the  Savior,. — a  divine  in  the  highest  and  holiest 
sense  of  the  word.  And  certainly  no  member  of  a  theo- 
logical faculty,  whatever  be  his  attainments  in  science,  will 
be  satisfied  with  his  service  as  a  teacher,  unless  he  enters 


CHURCH   HISTORY  AS  A  THEOLOGICAL  DISCIPLINE         4I 

into  the  blessed  work  of  moral  creation  and  becomes  a 
co-laborer  with  God  in  the  execution  of  that  glorious 
primeval  purpose:    "Let  us  make  man." 

Only  from  this  point  of  view  can  we  discern  the  highest 
uses  of  Church  History  as  a  theological  discipline — what 
we  may  call  its  more  practical  benefits.  With  the  bare 
enumeration  of  these  I  shall  conclude. 

First  of  all,  there  is  the  unique  cultural  value  of  this 
study.  For  one  thing,  as  history  in  general  has  ever  been 
the  most  comprehensive  of  the  sciences,  so  among  the 
theological  branches,  Church  History  traverses  a  wider  field 
than  any  other.  Its  literature  is  quite  as  extensive  as  that 
of  all  the  other  departments  combined.  Its  subject  -matter 
is  as  varied  as  human  life  itself.  It  is  the  least  special, 
and,  by  that  very  token,  the  most  liberal  of  the  theological 
studies.  It  stands  nearest  of  all  to  the  so-called  "humani- 
ties," those  courses  in  the  college  and  university  which 
the  wisdom  of  a  millennium  has  preserved  as  those  best 
adapted  to  the  making  of  a  truly  educated  man.  It  breathes 
the  atmosphere  of  that  generous  culture  which  is  no  less 
useful  to  the  minister  than  it  is  to  the  lawyer,  the  juris- 
consult, the  man  of  affairs,  the  philosopher,  the  friend  of 
arts  and  letters.  Moreover,  just  because  the  historic  spirit 
is  the  spirit  of  humanity  as  a  whole,  the  influence  of 
our  discipline  is  a  valuable  corrective  of  those  in- 
tellectual vices  to  which  the  extreme  specialization  in 
scientific  labor  exposes  alike  the  graduate  and  the  under- 
graduate student  of  our  day, — the  exaggeration,  the  dis- 
tortion, and  the  lopsidedness  that  spring  from  the  failure 
to  "see  life  steadily  and  see  it  whole".  But  no  one  can 
read  history  even  in  a  cursory  fashion  without  catching 
something  of  the  meaning  of  that  underlying  unity  which 
here,  as  in  the  case  of  every  organic  evolution,  is  as  obvious 
as  is  the  diversity.  In  this  respect  the  study  of  history 
affects  the  mind  in  much  the  same  way  as  does  travel  in 
a  foreign  land;  the  impressionistic  vividness  of  sight,  grasp- 
ing a  multitude  of  details  in  a  single  comprehensive  view, 


42       CHURCH    HISTORY    AS    A    THEOLOGICAL    DISCIPLINE 

not  only  promptly  dispels  many  false  preconceptions  and 
prejudices,  but  furnishes  the  due  perspective  for  an  ac- 
curate understanding  and  judicial  estimate  of  the  whole. 
Surely  in  an  age  like  ours,  distraught  as  it  is  by  its  special- 
ism and  confused  by  the  disintegrations  of  its  knowledge. 
Church  History,  as  the  narrative  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
can  render  a  unique  service  by  restoring  to  us  the  clear 
perception  of  the  true  realm  of  ends  in  human  character 
and  conduct ;  by  coordinating  and  harmonizing  the  diver- 
gent and  often  discordant  elements  of  our  culture;  in  a 
word,  by  showing  us  anew  the  unity  of  our  thought  and 
life,  the  beauty  of  the  ordered  whole  of  man's  endeavors 
and  experiences. 

In  the  second  place,  Church  History  has  a  high  moral 
value.  Its  facts  have  an  inalienable  ethical  significance. 
If  the  history  of  the  world  is  the  judgment  of  the  world, 
much  more  is  the  history  of  the  Church  the  judgment  of 
the  Church.  One  cannot  trace  the  career  of  man,  especially 
of  man  as  a  subject  of  redemption,  without  acquiring  a 
new  sense  of  the  transcendent  moral  values  of  life  and 
without  constantly  exercising  the  highest  function  of  the 
human  spirit — that  of  forming  and  estimating  standards 
of  duty,  ideals  of  character,  principles  of  conduct.  His- 
tory becomes  a  mighty  means  of  grace.  Its  endlessly  varied 
message  takes  quick  and  strong  hold  upon  life,  entering 
not  only  by  the  door  of  the  intellect  but,  like  all  the  deeper 
and  more  vital  influences,  through  the  countless  avenues 
that  lead  into  the  secret  places  of  the  subconscious  self. 
I  read  the  pathetic  story  of  the  Church's  failure  to  seize 
some  God-given  opportunity,  I  see  her  momentary  defeat, 
her  shame  and  misery,  and  I  needs  must  become  more 
vigilant  and  zealous  in  my  own  Christian  stewardship.  I 
get  a  glimpse  of  something  true  or  good  or  beautiful  in 
the  most  unexpected  nooks  and  corners  of  history — spring- 
tide flowers  at  the  doorstep  of  some  squalid  hovel — and  an 
ampler  charity  fills  my  heart.  I  hear  the  oft-repeated  cry 
of  a  noble  army  of  reformers  born  out  of  their  due  time, 


CHURCH   HISTORY  AS  A  THEOLOGICAL  DISCIPLINE        43 

"How  long,  O  Lord,  how  long?"  and  as  I  see  the  slow  de- 
livery of  the  divine  answer,  "A  thousand  years  are  as  one 
day",  the  virtue  of  patience  wears  a  new  lustre  in  my 
daily  routine.  I  behold  empires  fall,  nations  perish,  civili- 
zations crumble  into  nothingness,  art  and  song  and  the 
gentler  ministries  of  life  being  hushed  one  by  one  in  the 
silence  of  the  vast  desolation,  but  lo!  the  Prince  of  Peace 
is  in  the  van,  leading  the  age  by  some  strange  anabasis 
into  a  more  spacious  and  better  time;  and  never  again 
can  I  be  the  pessimist  I  was.  After  all,  Christianity  is 
its  own  best  defence.  Its  victories  are  the  supreme,  the 
irrefutable  analogy  of  its  faith.  In  a  word,  if  history 
teaches  reverence  for  the  past  and  moderation  and  caution 
with  respect  to  the  present,  it  likewise  fires  the  heart  even 
of  the  solitary  disciple  with  genial  optimism,  with  in- 
domitable courage,  with  undying  hope,  for  as  nothing  else 
can  or  does,  it  reveals  God 

out   of   evil,    still   educing  good. 
And  better,  thence  again,  and  better  still 
In  infinite  progression. 

Sixty-five  years  ago,  on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into 
the  chair  of  Church  History  in  this  Seminary,  Dr.  James 
Waddell  Alexander  said :  "To  detect  the  products  of  this 
secret  life,  which  has  been  visibly  the  same  in  every  age,  to 
recognize  it,  to  love  it,  and  to  emulate  it,  is  the  delightful 
work  of  Church  History.  Here  are  the  genuine  memorials 
of  the  fathers ;  here  are  the  true  relics  of  the  saints ;  not  to  be 
registered  in  calendars  and  graven  on  stone,  and  worshipped 
as  idols,  but  to  be  followed,  and  by  grace  surpassed.  If 
experience  is  valuable  in  our  own  hearts,  then  in  the 
hearts  of  others;  if  in  what  is  contemporary,  then  in  what 
is  past;  if  of  one  age,  then  of  all  ages.  .  .  .  Next  to  the 
study  of  God's  work  in  Scripture,  is  the  study  of  God's 
work  in  the  later  Church." 

In  the  third  place,  Church  History  can  confer  inestimable 
benefits  upon  the  minister  of  the  Gospel  in  his  official  work. 
This   is  by 'way   of  eminence  the   practical  value  of  this 


44      CHURCH    HISTORY   AS   A   THEOLOGICAL   DISCIPLINE 

Study — its  strictly  professional  or  vocational  uses.  We 
have  already  seen  how  the  history  of  the  Church  illumines 
and  illustrates  all  .  the  scientific  principles,  that  is,  the 
theories,  which  must  underlie  the  practical  theological  dis- 
ciplines. But  the  pastor's  use  of  this  information  is  quite 
different  from  that  of  the  professor  who  is  called  upon  to 
teach  these  subjects.  The  former  deals  with  the  problem 
in  the  concrete.  It  it  not  a  theory  but  a  condition  that 
confronts  him.  His  work  in  the  parish,  as  a  shepherd  of 
souls,  as  a  preacher,  an  ecclesiastic,  an  administrator  of 
affairs,  an  official  leader  of  the  Church,  constantly  requires 
him  to  determine  practical  issues.  Now,  of  course,  if  he 
lacks  common  sense — the  sense  to  see  the  common  things 
of  life  in  their  true  relations — not  even  the  most  thorough 
knowledge  of  history  can  give  him  that  nice  discrimination 
as  to  the  best  course  of  action  under  given  circumstances, 
which  is  the  peculiar  grace  and  genius  of  the  man  of  tact. 
But  granted  even  a  modicum  of  this  native  wit,  the  knowl- 
edge of  history  will  be  the  best  means  for  its  cultivation. 
"The  fearless  and  reverent  questionings  of  the  sages  of 
other  times"  will  be  for  the  minister,  as  for  all  others  deal- 
ing with  practical  measures,  "the  permitted  necromancy", 
as  it  has  been  called,  "of  the  wise".  He,  too,  will  find 
it  true :  "There  is  somebody  that  knows  more  than  any- 
body and  that  is  everybody."  For  a  broad,  strong,  efficient 
and  judicious  churchmanship,  no  study  is  more  helpful  than 
that  which  enables  a  man  not  only  to  avoid  methods  and 
expedients  that  have  time  and  again  proved  their  worth- 
lessness  or  insufficiency,  but  also  to  commend  the  promises 
and  prophecies  of  his  own  program  by  some  sure  word  of 
history. 

But  above  all,  the  minister  of  the  Gospel  can  and  should 
exploit  Church  History  for  his  work  as  a  preacher.  By 
this  we  mean  something  more  than  that  he  ought  to  be 
familiar  with  typical  products  of  the  pulpit  in  the  various 
stages  of  its  development;  though  it  goes  without  saying 
that  in  mastering  any  art,  nothing  whatever  can  take  the 


CHURCH  HISTORY  AS  A  THEOLOGICAL  DISCIPLINE        45 

place  of  the  study  of  its  acknowledged  masters,  alike  the 
dead  and  the  living.  But  here,  too,  we  are  concerned  not 
with  theory,  but  with  practice;  not  with  homiletics  as  a 
discipline,  but  with  preaching  as  a  pastoral  service.  And 
therefore,  if  we  have  correctly  apprehended  Church  His- 
tory as  the  organic  evolution  of  the  regenerate  life  of 
humanity,  we  must  insist  that  the  history  of  Christianity 
is  nothing  less  than  the  Gospel  itself  in  the  richest,  the 
most  complete,  the  most  effective  mode  in  which  it  can 
be  presented.  It  gives  the  truth  its  most  vital  ex- 
pression, resembling  in  this  respect  the  inspired  Scripture 
itself,  which  always  places  the  revealed  knowledge  of 
God  in  an  impressive  life-context.  Hence  the  unique 
value  of  that  homiletic  mode  which  makes  a  free' 
use  of  history.  Doubtless,  there  are  special  difficulties  at- 
tending the  composition  and  delivery  of  historical  sermons. 
They  demand  ample  knowledge,  the  fruit  of  w'ide  and 
varied  reading;  a  nimble,  penetrating  and  cultured  historical 
imagination  that  can  readily  seize  th&  suggestive  details 
of  an  incident,  a  biography,  an  epoch,  and  group  them  in 
a  life-like  and  moving  picture;  and  an  unusual  skill  in  the 
disposition  of  the  illustrative  material  and  in  its  adjustment 
to  the  practical,  the  religious,  aim  of  the  message.  Or- 
dinarily, too,  such  discourses,  because  of  their  abundant 
narrative  and  descriptive  elements,  will  require  more  time 
than  others  for  their  delivery.  But  even  so,  the  sermon 
of  history  has  its  own  incomparable  charm  and  power; 
while  most  of  its  advantages,  without  any  of  its  draw- 
backs, may  be  secured  in  that  type  of  preaching  which, 
whatever  the  subject,  makes  generous  use  of  history  for 
all  four  of  the  rhetorical  modes  by  which  a  theme  may  be 
developed  and  applied — explanation,  argument,  illustration 
and  persuasion.  Not  seldom  will  well  selected  historical 
materials  perform  all  these  homiletic  functions  at  one  and 
the  same  time.  Precisely  here  we  find  the  secret  of  the 
acknowledged  failure  of  many  so-called  doctrinal  sermons. 
Theoretically,  this  is  the  highest  species  of  the  sermonic 


46       CHURCH    HISTORY    AS    A    THEOLOGICAL    DISCIPLINE 

art.  It  certainly  ought  to  form  the  staple  of  pulpit  work. 
But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  preachers  themselves  being  the 
witnesses  and  the  judges,  this  type  of  discourse  is  often  the 
least  satisfactory  to  themselves  and  the  least  interesting 
and  edifying  to  the  hearers.  The  trouble  ordinarily  is 
that  the  message  is  kept  too  far  aloof  from  life — the  life 
out  of  which  the  sacred  text  itself  grew,  and  the  life  in 
the  pew  to  which  that  text  is  supposed  to  minister.  But 
a  new  day  dawns  over  many  a  pulpit — a  day  of  vastly 
increased  power — when  the  preacher  realizes  that  every 
truly  vital  sermon  has  not  only  heaven  for  its  father, 
but  also  earth  for  its  mother :  that  the  biblical  doctrines 
are  all  facts  imbedded  in  a  historic  development :  and  that 
it  is  his  duty  not  merely  to  conceive  the  truth  as  thought 
but  to  perceive  it  as  life;  not  so  much  to  forge  long-linked 
abstractions,  addressed  to  but  one  faculty  of  the  mind,  and 
that  commonly  the  least  trained  and  the  feeblest,  the  ratio- 
cinative — but  rather  to  use  the  broader  strokes,  the  pictorial 
suggestiveness,  the  impressionistic  concreteness  by  which 
history,  no  less  than  poetry,  succeeds  in  making  a  truly 
universal  appeal  in  behalf,  largely,  of  the  very  same  moral 
and  spiritual  realities  with  which  the  pulpit  must  deal. 
To  stir  the  imagination  of  the  speaker  and  hearers  so  that 
it  will  quickly  seize  not  only  the  surface  value,  but  the 
cubical  contents,  the  hidden  power  of  a  fact;  to  awaken 
memories  in  his  heart  and  theirs  that  will  smite  conscience 
as  with  a  sabre-stroke,  or  fill  the  soul  as  with  the 
blessed  light  of  childhood's  golden  morning;  to  enable 
him  to  emotionalize  his  ideas,  that  being  self-moved,  he 
may  move  all  who  see  the  glow  and  feel  the  throb  of  his 
own  passion  for  the  truth ;  to  help  him  clothe  the  dry  bones 
of  his  homiletic  skeletons  with  the  flesh  and  blood  of  life 
that  is  all  the  more  real  because  it  is  historic,  so  that  his 
incarnated  message,  like  the  gospel  itself,  nay,  like  that 
divine  Logos  who  became  man  in  order  to  be  our  gospel, 
may  be  an  ever-living  word,  instinct  with  personal  power 
and  magnetism, — these  are  some  of  the  possible  ministries 


CHURCH  HISTORY  AS  A  THEOLOGICAL  DISCIPLINE        47 

of  history  to  him  whose  task  it  is,  by  the  noble  art  of  true 
preaching,  to  promote  the  noblest  art  of  true  living. 

And  now,  finally,  as  the  supreme  excellence  of  our  dis- 
cipline, we  mention  its  religious  value.  Not  for  its  scien- 
tific purposes  chiefly,  nor  yet  mainly  for  its  varied  cultural, 
ethical  and  professional  benefits  ought  we  to  cultivate  the 
knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  Church.  For  as  in  all 
other  theological  disciplines,  so  in  this,  the  highest 
aim  is  not  to  be  found  in  ourselves  but  only  in  him  who 
has  established  and  promoted  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in 
this  world  for  his  own  holy  name's  sake.  Doctor  Freeman 
closed  his  celebrated  Inaugural  Lecture  at  Oxford,  on  "The 
Office  of  the  Historical  Professor",  by  saying:  "We  shall 
surely  not  be  less  at  home  in  our  own  generation,  if  we 
bear  in  mind  that  we  are  the  heirs  and  scholars  of  the 
generations  that  went  before  us,  if  we  now  and  then  stop 
in  our  own  course  to  thank  the  memory  of  those  without 
whom  our  own  course  could  not  have  been  run,  if  we 
are  ready,  at  every  fitting  moment,  to  'praise  famous  men 
and  our  fathers  who  begat  us'  ".  It  is  a  worthy  sentiment, 
ever  true  and  timely.  But  surely  we  have  a  higher  duty 
and  a  more  blessed  privilege;  it  is  that  of  rising,  as  from 
every  contemplation  of  the  work  and  word  of  God  in 
Scripture,  so  from  all  our  study  of  his  deeds  of  grace 
and  messages  of  mercy  in  the  later  history  of  the  Church, 
with  eyes  and  hearts  uplifted  in  adoring  thanksgiving  and 
praise  to  him,  the  eternal  and  all-glorious  King  of  the 
ages,  the  Triune  God  of  our  creation  and  redemption,  of 
whom,  through  whom,  and  unto  whom  are  all  things.  That 
deep  word  of  truth  which  Hase  made  the  motto  of  his 
Church  History  must  be  our  guide  in  the  reaHzation  of 
the  final  end  of  this  discipline:  "The  Lord  of  the  times  is 
God,  the  turning-point  of  the  times  is  Christ,  the  true 
Spirit  of  the  times  is  the  Holy  Spirit."  Thus  shall  we 
more  fully  know  him  who  is  best  known  in  the  congre- 
gation of  his  saints,  and  more  worthily  serve  him  whom 
to  glorify  is  man's  chief  end.     In   fine,   Church  History 


48       CHURCH    HISTORY    AS    A    THEOLOGICAL    DISCIPLINE 

reveals  its  crowning  excellence  only  when  viewed  in  its 
organic  relations  with  that  branch  of  human  knowledge 
concerning  which  the  Angelic  Doctor  of  the  schools  said : 
"Theologia  a  Deo  docetur,  Deum  docet,  ad  Deum  ducit." 

Fathers  and  Brethren,  I  thank  you  for  your  kind 
attention  and  patient  forbearance.  I  have  detained  you  too 
long ;  but  I  cherish  the  hope  that  you  will  be  gracious  enough 
to  look  upon  the  undue  length  of  my  remarks  as  but  the 
defect  of  a  real  virtue  in  your  new  professor  of  Church 
History,  his  sincere  conviction  concerning  the  importance 
of  the  work  to  which  you  have  called  him  and  his  earnest 
desire  to  magnify  the  service  which  he  feels  you  may  justly 
expect  him  to  try  to  render  to  this  institution  of  sacred 
learning  and  to  the  Church  at  large.  Never  has  the  task 
seemed  greater,  or  its  responsibilities  more  onerous,  than 
at  this  moment.  But  in  humble  reliance  upon  the  all- 
sufficient  grace  of  God,  I  shall  continue,  as  I  trust  I  have 
begun,  to  take  heed  to  this  ministry  which  I  have  received 
in  the  Lord,  that  I  may  fulfill  it.  May  his  strength  be 
perfected  in  my  weakness,  to  the  end  that  in  him  no  labor 
of  mine  may  be  in  vain,  and  that  the  service  to-day  in- 
augurated may  increasingly  redound  to  the  praise  and  glory 
of  his  name. 


Date  Due 


3p2i 


